Obama has clearly lost his mind...

[CosmicCowboy]

White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings

By Philip Rucker, Saturday, January 5, 3:57 PM

The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.

A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.

To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda.

The Biden group, formed last month after the massacre at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that killed 20 children and six adults, plans to submit a package of recommendations to President Obama this month. Once Obama’s proposals are set, he plans to lead a public-relations offensive to generate popular support.

“They are very clearly committed to looking at this issue comprehensively,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who has been involved in the discussions. The proposals under consideration, he added, are “a deeper exploration than just the assault-weapons ban.”

The gun-control push is just one part of an ambitious political agenda that Obama has pledged to pursue after his decisive reelection victory in November, including comprehensive immigration reform, climate-change legislation and long-term deficit reduction. Obama also faces a reshuffling of his Cabinet, and a looming debate over the nation’s debt ceiling that will compete for his time and attention in the coming months.

In addition to potential legislative proposals, Biden’s group has expanded its focus to include measures that would not need congressional approval and could be quickly implemented by executive action, according to interest-group leaders who have discussed options with Biden and key Cabinet secretaries. Possibilities include changes to federal mental-health programs and modernization of gun-tracking efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“Simply coming up with one or two aspects of it really falls short of the magnitude of the gun issue in the country,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum.

Wexler was among a dozen law enforcement leaders who met with Biden and other administration leaders in the aftermath of the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. The Dec. 20 summit, which stretched an hour beyond an allotted one hour, included Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Biden “wanted to talk to us about the assault-weapons ban, automatic weapons, high-capacity magazines,” said Hennepin County (Minn.) Sheriff Richard Stanek, president of the Major County Sheriffs’ Association.

The vice president said the White House group would consider a variety of proposals — from requiring background checks for all gun buyers to creating a new database that would allow the ATF to track all gun sales, according to participants.

Stanek said the meeting also included significant discussion of mental-health issues, violence in video games and movies, and the poor quality of information contained in databases used to conduct criminal background checks before issuing gun permits.

Some of the options the administration is considering may not ultimately be included in Obama’s package. A White House spokesman said Biden’s group was in the midst of its review and has made no decisions on its final recommendations.

Politically rocky terrain

The White House is also developing strategies to navigate the rocky and emotionally fraught terrain of gun politics once final policy decisions are made. The administration is quietly talking with a diverse array of interest groups, including religious leaders, mental-health professionals and hunters, to build as broad a coalition as possible, those involved in the discussions said.

The president is expected to face fierce opposition from the NRA and its allies in Congress, including most Republicans and some Democrats.

But Biden signaled to those involved in the policy discussions that the White House is not afraid of taking on the NRA, the nation’s largest gun rights group. At the Dec. 20 meeting, according to Stanek, when one law enforcement leader suggested focusing on only the most popular proposals, Biden responded: “Look, what I’m asking you for is your candid opinion and ideas about extreme gun violence. Leave the politics to the president. That’s our job with Congress.”

NRA officials declined a request for comment. In response to the shooting in Newtown, Wayne LaPierre, the group’s executive vice president, called for installing armed police officers in every school.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” LaPierre said at a news conference Dec. 21.

One potential strategy would be to win support for specific measures from interest groups that are normally aligned with the NRA, according to one person who works closely with the administration on gun-related issues and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity.

For instance, this person suggested, Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores.

Timing is imperative

Obama’s advisers have calculated that the longer they wait, the more distance there is from the Newtown massacre and the greater the risk that the bipartisan political will to tackle gun violence will dissipate.

“This is not something that I will be putting off,” Obama said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in an interview broadcast last Sunday.

At the White House meeting, Stanek said, “the vice president indicated that there was a very short timeline for him to get back to the president with his recommendations because the American public has a short memory.”

Already, three weeks after the Newtown shooting, gun-control advocates are growing impatient with a legislative process that is just beginning.

“As we get involved in these ad nauseam debates over the Second Amendment, our children are still at risk,” said Jon Adler, national president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. “Debating is not the action verb we need to protect our children.”

With the start of the 113th Congress last week, several lawmakers filed bills to address gun violence. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who co-wrote a 1994 assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004, plans to introduce legislation this month that would ban the sale or manufacture of about 120 firearms, including semiautomatic rifles and military-style handguns, as well as ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.

The expired federal assault-weapons ban prohibited the manufacturing of 19 models of semiautomatic guns classified as assault weapons, including certain rifles and shot guns. The law also banned ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. But it did not ban the sale of previously manufactured assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.

Since the law’s sunset, efforts in Congress over the past decade to reinstate the ban have faced stiff opposition from the NRA and the firearms industry and have never passed.

Adler, who has submitted recommendations to Biden’s group, said he has told administration officials that they need to pursue multiple measures to increase their chances of success.

“We can’t put all our protection-effort eggs in one basket with one piece of legislation,” he said. “We’ve got to do more than that.”

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not everyone lives on a ranch north of San Antonio and doesn't give shit as long as you get yours, CC. Obama has not lost his mind. Yopu are out of touch.

Here is a great CSM article talking about shifts in attitudes towards gun control.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/1229/Polls-show-movement-toward-stricter-gun-control-with-major-caveats

There is not a lot of support for a handgun or assault weapon ban but that article doesn't say that is what the proposal will include. Only that they are talking about it. Perhaps you had best plan on how things actually are rather then how you would like them to be.

[Bender]

he's got nothing to lose. Put his chicago-style gun controls on the entire nation.

Worked real in Chicago... oh, wait...

[spursncowboys]

Everyone realizing their pay got less from his taxes.
No shot of him able to sell more social programs to people for political points
No recovery in sight
This is all he's got!

He'll lose though. Walmart isn't going to play ball.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

he's got nothing to lose. Put his chicago-style gun controls on the entire nation.

Worked real in Chicago... oh, wait...

How far is Indiana from Chicago? What are the requirements for purchasing a handgun in Indiana?

[boutons_deux]

"well-regulated"

two Constitutional words you 2nd Amendment frauds, dickless gun fetishists, old paranoid fatass white guys, the NRA, and the gun industry love to ignore.

[Wild Cobra]

A well regulated Militia. It doesn't say the tools of the militia.

Don't get me wrong, the problem is we all disagree on what is a reasonable regulation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Everyone realizing their pay got less from his taxes.
No shot of him able to sell more social programs to people for political points
No recovery in sight
This is all he's got!

He'll lose though. Walmart isn't going to play ball.

No payscale in the Army all the way to O-11 will see a raise in taxes so we know you won't see a tax increase.

We have been experiencing economic growth of about 1.75% for the past two years. The economy added more jobs this past December as it had for the previous several months. Why let facts get in the way though?

Your GOP got it's ass handed to it 2 months ago ffs and more or less bent over for the Dems on the cliff deal immediately following the beatdown.

What you should think about is your GOP current posturing of brinksmanship regarding the debt ceiling and what happened last time to our nation's credit rating. You should think about the GOP schism that is only becoming more apparent as the rats jump the ship.

Off year elections are very dangerous for the GOP as they slink back to the far right catering to the base during the primaries only to demonstrate how business as usual doesn't play with the broader electorate anymore. The next 4 years might be the beginning of another 1934-1994 for the GOP if they continue to shit the bed.

[Wild Cobra]

The economy added more jobs this past December as it had for the previous several months. Why let facts get in the way though?

Yes, why not...

You are the expert at construing facts.

155,000 jobs added in December 2012. 2012 average is 153,000...

How many of those jobs might be new tax preparers in training...

US Department of Labor link: Employment Situation Summary (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

WC: I am not going to make your 'might be' case. It's much more entertaining watching you try turn your wishful thinking into a credible argument.

[DMC]

What won't pass: Gun registration database

What will pass: pork spending tacked on that has nothing to do with guns.

The rest is pretty much being done already, and stiffer penalties? Are they going to dig Lanza up and issue him a citation? They should enforce existing laws.

[DMC]

No payscale in the Army all the way to O-11 will see a raise in taxes so we know you won't see a tax increase.

We have been experiencing economic growth of about 1.75% for the past two years. The economy added more jobs this past December as it had for the previous several months. Why let facts get in the way though?

Your GOP got it's ass handed to it 2 months ago ffs and more or less bent over for the Dems on the cliff deal immediately following the beatdown.

What you should think about is your GOP current posturing of brinksmanship regarding the debt ceiling and what happened last time to our nation's credit rating. You should think about the GOP schism that is only becoming more apparent as the rats jump the ship.

Off year elections are very dangerous for the GOP as they slink back to the far right catering to the base during the primaries only to demonstrate how business as usual doesn't play with the broader electorate anymore. The next 4 years might be the beginning of another 1934-1994 for the GOP if they continue to shit the bed.

America lives under the shadow of George W. Bush


Editor's note: Julian Zelizer (http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ejzelizer/)is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter" and of "Governing America."
Princeton, New Jersey (CNN)

-- Somewhere in Texas, former President George W. Bush is smiling.
Although some Democrats are pleased that taxes will now go up on the wealthiest Americans, the recent deal to avert the fiscal cliff entrenches, rather than dismantles, one of Bush's signature legacies -- income tax cuts. Ninety-nine percent of American households were protected from tax increases, aside from the expiration of the reduced rate for the payroll tax.

In the final deal, Congress and President Barack Obama agreed to preserve most of the Bush tax cuts, including exemptions on the estate tax.
When Bush started his term in 2001, many of his critics dismissed him as a lightweight, the son of a former president who won office as result of his family's political fortune and a controversial decision by the Supreme Court on the 2000 election.

But what has become clear in hindsight, regardless of what one thinks of Bush and his politics, is that his administration left behind a record that has had a huge impact on American politics, a record that will not easily be dismantled by future presidents.

The twin pillars of Bush's record were counterterrorism policies and tax cuts. During his first term, it became clear that Obama would not dismantle most of the homeland security apparatus put into place by his predecessor. Despite a campaign in 2008 that focused on flaws with the nation's response to 9/11, Obama has kept most of the counterterrorism program intact.

In some cases, the administration continues to aggressively use tactics his supporters once decried, such as relying on renditions to detain terrorist suspects who are overseas, as The Washington Post reported this week (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/renditions-continue-under-obama-despite-due-process-concerns/2013/01/01/4e593aa0-5102-11e2-984e-f1de82a7c98a_story.html). In other areas, the administration has expanded the war on terrorism, including the broader use of drone strikes to kill terrorists.

Now come taxes and spending.

With regard to the Bush tax cuts, Obama had promised to overturn a policy that he saw as regressive. Although he always said that he would protect the middle class from tax increases, Obama criticized Bush for pushing through Congress policies that bled the federal government of needed revenue and benefited the wealthy.

In 2010, Obama agreed to temporarily extend all the tax cuts. Though many Democrats were furious, Obama concluded that he had little political chance to overturn them and he seemed to agree with Republicans that reversing them would hurt an economy limping along after a terrible recession.


With the fiscal cliff deal, Obama could certainly claim more victories than in 2010. Taxes for the wealthiest Americans will go up. Congress also agreed to extend unemployment compensation and continue higher payments to Medicare providers.


But beneath all the sound and fury is the fact that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, for most Americans, are now a permanent part of the legislative landscape. (In addition, middle class Americans will breathe a sigh of relief that Congress has permanently fixed the Alternative Minimum Tax, which would have hit many of them with a provision once designed to make sure that the wealthy paid their fair share.)
As Michigan Republican Rep. Dave Camp remarked, "After more than a decade of criticizing these tax cuts, Democrats are finally joining Republicans in making them permanent." Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the new legislation will increase the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years.
The tax cuts have significant consequences on all of American policy.


Most important, the fact that a Democratic president has now legitimated the moves of a Republican administration gives a bipartisan imprimatur to the legitimacy of the current tax rates.

Although some Republicans signed on to raising taxes for the first time in two decades, the fact is that Democrats have agreed to tax rates which, compared to much of the 20th century, are extraordinarily low. Public perception of a new status quo makes it harder for presidents to ever raise taxes on most Americans to satisfy the revenue needs for the federal government.


At the same time, the continuation of reduced taxes keeps the federal government in a fiscal straitjacket. As a result, politicians are left to focus on finding the money to pay for existing programs or making cuts wherever possible.

New innovations in federal policy that require substantial revenue are just about impossible. To be sure, there have been significant exceptions, such as the Affordable Care Act. But overall, bold policy departures that require significant amounts of general revenue are harder to come by than in the 1930s or 1960s.


Republicans thus succeed with what some have called the "starve the beast" strategy of cutting government by taking away its resources. Since the long-term deficit only becomes worse, Republicans will continue to have ample opportunity to pressure Democrats into accepting spending cuts and keep them on the defense with regards to new government programs.



With his income tax cuts enshrined, Bush can rest comfortably that much of the policy world he designed will remain intact and continue to define American politics. Obama has struggled to work within the world that Bush created, and with this legislation, even with his victories, he has demonstrated that the possibilities for change have been much more limited than he imagined when he ran in 2008 or even in 2012.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/03/opinion/zelizer-shadow-bush/index.html

[CosmicCowboy]

No payscale in the Army all the way to O-11 will see a raise in taxes so we know you won't see a tax increase.

We have been experiencing economic growth of about 1.75% for the past two years. The economy added more jobs this past December as it had for the previous several months. Why let facts get in the way though?

Your GOP got it's ass handed to it 2 months ago ffs and more or less bent over for the Dems on the cliff deal immediately following the beatdown.

What you should think about is your GOP current posturing of brinksmanship regarding the debt ceiling and what happened last time to our nation's credit rating. You should think about the GOP schism that is only becoming more apparent as the rats jump the ship.

Off year elections are very dangerous for the GOP as they slink back to the far right catering to the base during the primaries only to demonstrate how business as usual doesn't play with the broader electorate anymore. The next 4 years might be the beginning of another 1934-1994 for the GOP if they continue to shit the bed.

LOL at you thinking that was a Republican beatdown. They got the Bush tax cuts for those making less than 450K made PERMANENT along with the 5 million X2 estate tax exemption made PERMANENT. Sayin it don't make it so. Conservatives won that round, the liberal media just doesn't want to admit it and you are too stupid to realize it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The GOP couldn't beat Barack 'floundering' Obama. The GOP lost 6 seats in the house, 2 seats in the Senate, and couldn't beat the lamest duck incumbent since Hoover. Pull your head out of your ass. All of this was under the backdrop of GOP claims of retaking the Congress specifically the Senate.

And the media is just parroting the line from within GOP ranks. Trying to act like the tax policy was not bipartisan is hilarious as is ignoring the GOP rhetoric about spending and actual policy implementation of said rhetoric.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

America lives under the shadow of George W. Bush


Editor's note: Julian Zelizer (http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ejzelizer/)is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter" and of "Governing America."
Princeton, New Jersey (CNN)

-- Somewhere in Texas, former President George W. Bush is smiling.
Although some Democrats are pleased that taxes will now go up on the wealthiest Americans, the recent deal to avert the fiscal cliff entrenches, rather than dismantles, one of Bush's signature legacies -- income tax cuts. Ninety-nine percent of American households were protected from tax increases, aside from the expiration of the reduced rate for the payroll tax.

In the final deal, Congress and President Barack Obama agreed to preserve most of the Bush tax cuts, including exemptions on the estate tax.
When Bush started his term in 2001, many of his critics dismissed him as a lightweight, the son of a former president who won office as result of his family's political fortune and a controversial decision by the Supreme Court on the 2000 election.

But what has become clear in hindsight, regardless of what one thinks of Bush and his politics, is that his administration left behind a record that has had a huge impact on American politics, a record that will not easily be dismantled by future presidents.

The twin pillars of Bush's record were counterterrorism policies and tax cuts. During his first term, it became clear that Obama would not dismantle most of the homeland security apparatus put into place by his predecessor. Despite a campaign in 2008 that focused on flaws with the nation's response to 9/11, Obama has kept most of the counterterrorism program intact.

In some cases, the administration continues to aggressively use tactics his supporters once decried, such as relying on renditions to detain terrorist suspects who are overseas, as The Washington Post reported this week (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/renditions-continue-under-obama-despite-due-process-concerns/2013/01/01/4e593aa0-5102-11e2-984e-f1de82a7c98a_story.html). In other areas, the administration has expanded the war on terrorism, including the broader use of drone strikes to kill terrorists.

Now come taxes and spending.

With regard to the Bush tax cuts, Obama had promised to overturn a policy that he saw as regressive. Although he always said that he would protect the middle class from tax increases, Obama criticized Bush for pushing through Congress policies that bled the federal government of needed revenue and benefited the wealthy.

In 2010, Obama agreed to temporarily extend all the tax cuts. Though many Democrats were furious, Obama concluded that he had little political chance to overturn them and he seemed to agree with Republicans that reversing them would hurt an economy limping along after a terrible recession.


With the fiscal cliff deal, Obama could certainly claim more victories than in 2010. Taxes for the wealthiest Americans will go up. Congress also agreed to extend unemployment compensation and continue higher payments to Medicare providers.


But beneath all the sound and fury is the fact that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, for most Americans, are now a permanent part of the legislative landscape. (In addition, middle class Americans will breathe a sigh of relief that Congress has permanently fixed the Alternative Minimum Tax, which would have hit many of them with a provision once designed to make sure that the wealthy paid their fair share.)
As Michigan Republican Rep. Dave Camp remarked, "After more than a decade of criticizing these tax cuts, Democrats are finally joining Republicans in making them permanent." Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the new legislation will increase the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years.
The tax cuts have significant consequences on all of American policy.


Most important, the fact that a Democratic president has now legitimated the moves of a Republican administration gives a bipartisan imprimatur to the legitimacy of the current tax rates.

Although some Republicans signed on to raising taxes for the first time in two decades, the fact is that Democrats have agreed to tax rates which, compared to much of the 20th century, are extraordinarily low. Public perception of a new status quo makes it harder for presidents to ever raise taxes on most Americans to satisfy the revenue needs for the federal government.


At the same time, the continuation of reduced taxes keeps the federal government in a fiscal straitjacket. As a result, politicians are left to focus on finding the money to pay for existing programs or making cuts wherever possible.

New innovations in federal policy that require substantial revenue are just about impossible. To be sure, there have been significant exceptions, such as the Affordable Care Act. But overall, bold policy departures that require significant amounts of general revenue are harder to come by than in the 1930s or 1960s.


Republicans thus succeed with what some have called the "starve the beast" strategy of cutting government by taking away its resources. Since the long-term deficit only becomes worse, Republicans will continue to have ample opportunity to pressure Democrats into accepting spending cuts and keep them on the defense with regards to new government programs.



With his income tax cuts enshrined, Bush can rest comfortably that much of the policy world he designed will remain intact and continue to define American politics. Obama has struggled to work within the world that Bush created, and with this legislation, even with his victories, he has demonstrated that the possibilities for change have been much more limited than he imagined when he ran in 2008 or even in 2012.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/03/opinion/zelizer-shadow-bush/index.html

Is there some point to this other than the two party system and the holes it pigeons us into is problematic? FWIW, I agree that taxes need to be brought back up around 6% to about 19% which is what it was before the Boomer's started voting themselves a free ride.

[Wild Cobra]

WC: I am not going to make your 'might be' case. It's much more entertaining watching you try turn your wishful thinking into a credible argument.
There you go assuming again, and being wrong, again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There you go assuming again, and being wrong, again.

:lol The WC fallback when he has no clue wtf he is talking about. What assumption am I making? this should be entertaining.

Oh and as an aside, you little GOP 3some here flies in the face of your assumption that this is a 'liberal' board.

[Wild Cobra]

If you say so troll. Everyone knows just how lame you are.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:cry

What assumption did I make?

[ElNono]

don't get the panic in the thread title... what should the fuzz be about?

[mavs>spurs]

he might have lost his mind but we'll see if he is downright crazy..anything unconstitutional could prove dangerous imho. you know that the people aren't going to stand for the bullshit..this much has already been made clear. we will see full scale civil war before any of these draconian measures come to pass.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Making innuendo's about assaulting POTUS and allusions to civil war on a public forum is not the smartest thing I have ever read.

[mavs>spurs]

who the hell did that? i'm just pointing out the obvious in a country full of crazies..i never said any such thing about doing anything criminal and ill go ahead and make it clear by saying that i have NO plans to assault anyone personally..but the obvious is obvious and i'm not going to be scared to point it out in a land where do DO still have free speech.

[mavs>spurs]

you liberal cowards crack me up..there is nothing wrong with saying that if you impose upon people's constituational rights that they aren't going to stand for it by any means necessary. it's already written in the constitution that the people DO reserve that right..please next time keep your stupid to yourself.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

who the hell did that? i'm just pointing out the obvious in a country full of crazies..i never said any such thing about doing anything criminal and ill go ahead and make it clear by saying that i have NO plans to assault anyone personally..but the obvious is obvious and i'm not going to be scared to point it out in a land where do DO still have free speech.

Uh huh and you call others cowards. So who are these obvious revolutionaries that are going to harm the president? Friends of yours cause I never see them

[Wild Cobra]

It's just Fuzzy. He's always reading his bias of others into what they say.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who is they? I only see you two. But m<s, WC has your back aren't you happy?

[mavs>spurs]

it's nothing personal against any one particular person, feinstein is another person of interest at the moment whom we the people won't cower to. anyone who tramples on the constitution on that level will have to be addressed by the people. you have marines, police, every day citizens, all saying that they won't be disarmed. the constitution and bill of rights are non-negotiable. it's a republic, not majority rules (even though there is no such majority in this country). if you dont' like it, move to north korea.

[mavs>spurs]

i even edited my post just for you fuzzy...i wouldn't want the thought police coming to get me or being responsible for some crazy person getting ideas because of what i write. because people don't kill people, words, ideas, and guns do it all by themselves. you probably think that it's an assault to fight back against a mugger or burglar. lets not ever accept personal responsibility, it's easier to find someone/something to blame with you liberal scum.

[ElNono]

we've had/have much worse transgressions of constitutional rights IMO (including assassination of US citizens without due process), and as long as the average amurrican can watch Oprah in his 55" TV and is sold that it's for the good of the country, none give a shit, IMO.

[ChumpDumper]

he might have lost his mind but we'll see if he is downright crazy..anything unconstitutional could prove dangerous imho. you know that the people aren't going to stand for the bullshit..this much has already been made clear. we will see full scale civil war before any of these draconian measures come to pass.We won't see civil war over this.

We'll see some idiots overreact.

[TSA]

who the hell did that? i'm just pointing out the obvious in a country full of crazies..i never said any such thing about doing anything criminal and ill go ahead and make it clear by saying that i have NO plans to assault anyone personally..but the obvious is obvious and i'm not going to be scared to point it out in a land where do DO still have free speech.
Better go edit 90% of last weeks posts.

[CosmicCowboy]

No way this gets through the house IMHO. The senate pussies might squeak through with a majority but I don't think they can get a majority even there. This is what every conservative feared. Obama Unchained. He is going to throw every liberal agenda on the wall in the next 4 years and hope he gets something to stick and what he can't get done with legislation he will do with executive order and congress won't stop him. Fuck us.

[mavs>spurs]

No way this gets through the house IMHO. The senate pussies might squeak through with a majority but I don't think they can get a majority even there. This is what every conservative feared. Obama Unchained. He is going to throw every liberal agenda on the wall in the next 4 years and hope he gets something to stick and what he can't get done with legislation he will do with executive order and congress won't stop him. Fuck us.
this is exactly what everyone was worried about, guns have been on this dude's agenda since he was a senator we all saw it coming. Somebody has got to call ass on the executive orders that we all know are coming. It's an abuse of power.

[ElNono]

No way this gets through the house IMHO. The senate pussies might squeak through with a majority but I don't think they can get a majority even there. This is what every conservative feared. Obama Unchained. He is going to throw every liberal agenda on the wall in the next 4 years and hope he gets something to stick and what he can't get done with legislation he will do with executive order and congress won't stop him. Fuck us.

doubt he gets anything done with executive orders, but even then, it's nothing the next GOP president can't overrule... in other words, nothing to freak out about, tbh...

[mavs>spurs]

there won't be a "next GOP president." now if we can just ensure that there won't be a "next libtard president" either, we'd be in business.

[ElNono]

there won't be a "next GOP president." now if we can just ensure that there won't be a "next libtard president" either, we'd be in business.

that's sutpid. ofcourse there will be a "next GOP president".

[mavs>spurs]

nah they're done for a while, and i couldn't complain except for the little problem of what that means..that there will be a libtard in charge. that witch hillary clinton will be the next president imho. it's already on the agenda.

[rascal]

i even edited my post just for you fuzzy...i wouldn't want the thought police coming to get me or being responsible for some crazy person getting ideas because of what i write. because people don't kill people, words, ideas, and guns do it all by themselves. you probably think that it's an assault to fight back against a mugger or burglar. lets not ever accept personal responsibility, it's easier to find someone/something to blame with you liberal scum.

You edited the post because you are scared shitless.

[mavs>spurs]

nah i didnt say shit wrong you little sackless son of a bitch. i honestly DO think shit will get crazy if he tries anything major regarding guns. no telling what might go down..it's like opening pandora's box. it's an extremely volatile situation and only pansies like you don't understand the seriousness of the situation.

[ElNono]

nah they're done for a while, and i couldn't complain except for the little problem of what that means..that there will be a libtard in charge. that witch hillary clinton will be the next president imho. it's already on the agenda.

they simply won't get voted if they try to ram shit through executive orders... that much is clear, otherwise they wouldn't need to put up with this House/Boehner, etc... fact is, nothing changed and nothing will change. Next prez is likely going to be Christie, IMO.

[Th'Pusher]

LOL at you thinking that was a Republican beatdown. They got the Bush tax cuts for those making less than 450K made PERMANENT along with the 5 million X2 estate tax exemption made PERMANENT. Sayin it don't make it so. Conservatives won that round, the liberal media just doesn't want to admit it and you are too stupid to realize it.
Republicans agreed to tax rate increases, not tax reform. They, in no way shape or form, won that battle. And btw, adjusted for inflation, the $400k/450k limit is right around the $250k limit when Clinton initially enacted the 39.6% rate. And they're not done. Next on the chopping block tax expenditures. Obama played long and is now bending the republicans over the barrel. Lol, not raising the debt ceiling is going to be a real winner with Wall Street.

[DMC]

No way this gets through the house IMHO. The senate pussies might squeak through with a majority but I don't think they can get a majority even there. This is what every conservative feared. Obama Unchained. He is going to throw every liberal agenda on the wall in the next 4 years and hope he gets something to stick and what he can't get done with legislation he will do with executive order and congress won't stop him. Fuck us.

Congress wouldn't take lightly the usurping of its powers and would most likely object and they have that power.

[Das Texan]

he might have lost his mind but we'll see if he is downright crazy..anything unconstitutional could prove dangerous imho. you know that the people aren't going to stand for the bullshit..this much has already been made clear. we will see full scale civil war before any of these draconian measures come to pass.


I'm not sure which part of the proposal itself is unconstitutional.

[CosmicCowboy]

Holy Shit. Just played with a friends new Black Rain M4 and damn near came in my pants. The workmanship was amazing. Can't wait to put some rounds down range with it next weekend at the ranch.

[ChumpDumper]

You guys are worried about nothing. This bill won't pass and the Democrats will have a bloody shirt to wave during the next election.

[CosmicCowboy]

You guys are worried about nothing. This bill won't pass and the Democrats will have a bloody shirt to wave during the next election.

I agree Chump. Obama has lost his fucking mind if he thinks he can read teleprompter speeches and convince us to register all guns. I think his narcissism is out of control.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree Chump. Obama has lost his fucking mind if he thinks he can read teleprompter speeches and convince us to register all guns. I think his narcissism is out of control.Nah, it's just another calculated political move. Will probably work too tbh.

[Wild Cobra]

The economy added more jobs this past December as it had for the previous several months. Why let facts get in the way though?
Where do you get your incorrect facts from anyway? I didn't see a link. Here is something you might consider, besides what I already posted:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/2012employment.jpg (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf)

Please note that by these numbers, six of the year 2012 months had more job growth than December. I knew your claimed numbers were wrong from the start. Both September and October had more growth. Does the "last several months" mean November only?

[CosmicCowboy]

Nah, it's just another calculated political move. Will probably work too tbh.

Betcha $100 it won't. He is NOT gonna push through gun registration. His narcissism has clouded his judgement.

[ChumpDumper]

Betcha $100 it won't. He is NOT gonna push through gun registration. His narcissism has clouded his judgement.I just said the bill won't pass. The political move will work though.

This "narcissism" tag is useless bot talk.

[CosmicCowboy]

I just said the bill won't pass. The political move will work though.

This "narcissism" tag is useless bot talk.

Sorry but that was my personal opinion and not some bot vomit. If you and I both think he doesn't have a chance in hell of passing the bullshit he is spouting how else do you explain it?

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry but that was my personal opinion and not some bot vomit.It's what they all say. It's a meme that never stuck.
If you and I both think he doesn't have a chance in hell of passing the bullshit he is spouting how else do you explain it?See "bloody shirt" comment above.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's what they all say. It's a meme that never stuck.See "bloody shirt" comment above.

except a lot of democrats will vote against it too. Obama the Narcissist isn't running again.

[ChumpDumper]

except a lot of democrats will vote against it too.The ones who need to will.
Obama the Narcissist isn't running again.That meme never worked. Give it up.

[CosmicCowboy]

So Chump, if he wasn't a narcissist (which most politicians are) why would he expend massive political capital on something you and I both believe will never pass? We aren't exactly ideological soul mates.

[ChumpDumper]

So Chump, if he wasn't a narcissist (which most politicians are) why would he expend massive political capital on something you and I both believe will never pass? We aren't exactly ideological soul mates.I don't understand why I have to keep explaining this to you. Some watered down shit will be passed down the line along with the executive order crap. Political capital means nothing anymore in the age of obstruction.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't understand why I have to keep explaining this to you. Some watered down shit will be passed down the line along with the executive order crap. Political capital means nothing anymore in the age of obstruction.
OK, call me stupid...

You do always anyway.

But please...

Explain how an executive order can change gen laws, when it does not apply to the executive.

[ChumpDumper]

OK, call me stupid...

You do always anyway.

But please...

Explain how an executive order can change gen laws, when it does not apply to the executive.We'll see what he tries to do. I'm not the one who brought up the possibility.

[CosmicCowboy]

OK, call me stupid...

You do always anyway.

But please...

Explain how an executive order can change gen laws, when it does not apply to the executive.

The Executive controls not only the ATF but the Justice Department. They can do HUGE damage outside of congressional control. They can make having a FFL so daunting that even WalMart would walk away.

[DMX7]

I believe people with mental illnesses should be allowed to possess any gun they choose -- it's their constitutional right.

[Wild Cobra]

We'll see what he tries to do. I'm not the one who brought up the possibility.
But you said "with the executive order..."

[ChumpDumper]

But you said "with the executive order..."Yes, I did.

[ElNono]

So Chump, if he wasn't a narcissist (which most politicians are) why would he expend massive political capital on something you and I both believe will never pass? We aren't exactly ideological soul mates.

you can be really naive sometimes, CC... he'll make a lot of noise even if he's fully aware nothing can pass, because the party can use it as a political tool in the future. Both you and I know there will be many other nutjobs in the future doing harm, and at that point they can pull the "hey, remember after Sandy Hook we tried to do all this but big meanie red team wouldn't let us?" card. Plus most second term presidents are lame-duck by the second year. He's got this episode and the fact he just won re-election to at least have somebody paying attention to what he says. In a couple of years, nobody will even listen.

[Wild Cobra]

Both you and I know there will be many other nutjobs in the future doing harm, and at that point they can pull the "hey, remember after Sandy Hook we tried to do all this but big meanie red team wouldn't let us?" card.
Yes, and the liberal media will gladly help.

[ElNono]

Yes, and the liberal media will gladly help.

And the conservative media too. Abortion/Guns/Religion sells. Look at this shit right now.

[rascal]

this is exactly what everyone was worried about, guns have been on this dude's agenda since he was a senator we all saw it coming. Somebody has got to call ass on the executive orders that we all know are coming. It's an abuse of power.

Don't you already have guns? How many more guns do you need?

[Wild Cobra]

And the conservative media too. Abortion/Guns/Religion sells. Look at this shit right now.
LOL...

Yes, the media will do what they can to make more money.

[ElNono]

Yes, the media will do what they can to make more money.

It's a business, with shareholders and what not... just like any other.

[Wild Cobra]

It's a business, with shareholders and what not... just like any other.
It sure would be nice if the market wanted unbiased truth.

[ElNono]

It sure would be nice if the market wanted unbiased truth.

well, you are the market too, and you seem to really dig confirmation-bias... apparently, that's where the money is at...

[rascal]

nah i didnt say shit wrong you little sackless son of a bitch. i honestly DO think shit will get crazy if he tries anything major regarding guns. no telling what might go down..it's like opening pandora's box. it's an extremely volatile situation and only pansies like you don't understand the seriousness of the situation.

I guess you think your some tough guy because you own guns. Your the pussy that is scared and needs a gun for protection. If you come anywhere near Connecticut I'll meet up with you and kick your ass.

[Wild Cobra]

well, you are the market too, and you seem to really dig confirmation-bias... apparently, that's where the money is at...
There you go assuming. Can you prove confirmation bias on my part? I think not.

[ElNono]

There you go assuming. Can you prove confirmation bias on my part? I think not.

You need to learn how to read, especially the part that says "seem"... it's an opinion, there's nothing to prove.

[DMX7]

I believe people with mental illnesses should be allowed to possess any gun they choose -- it's their constitutional right.

Children should also be allowed to bear arms -- it's their constitutional right. To deny them of that right is unconstitutional.

[Wild Cobra]

You need to learn how to read, especially the part that says "seem"... it's an opinion, there's nothing to prove.
LOL...

OK.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Children should also be allowed to bear arms -- it's their constitutional right. To deny them of that right is unconstitutional.

My Christmas idea for next year is actually glocks for tots, those toddlers need to be able to defend themselves.

[Wild Cobra]

My Christmas idea for next year is actually glocks for tots, those toddlers need to be able to defend themselves.
That's what toy guns are for, until a panty wetting cop shoots a kid playing with a toy.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

That's what toy guns are for, until a panty wetting cop shoots a kid playing with a toy.

Those kids have a 2nd amendment right. They should be able to carry real guns. Does the motherfuckin constitution not apply to 5 year olds?

GLOCKS FOR TOTS 2013!

[DMX7]

My Christmas idea for next year is actually glocks for tots, those toddlers need to be able to defend themselves.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.


That's what toy guns are for, until a panty wetting cop shoots a kid playing with a toy.

Children should be allowed to defend themselves. It's their right!

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If you don't think 5 year olds should be able to carry real guns, that means you hate the constitution and thereby hate America. Not letting 5 year olds carry guns is an act of treason.

[DMX7]

If you don't think 5 year olds should be able to carry real guns, that means you hate the constitution and thereby hate America. Not letting 5 year olds carry guns is an act of treason.

We can't truly be free from terror or violence until every man, woman and child has a gun or multiple guns.

[DMX7]

... with hollow-points.

[ElNono]

If you don't think 5 year olds should be able to carry real guns, that means you hate the constitution and thereby hate America. Not letting 5 year olds carry guns is an act of treason.

The only reason a bad 5 year old kid with a gun would kill is because a good 5 year old kid with a gun wasn't there to stop him

- NRA

[Wild Cobra]

I can't believe you guys are joking about such things.

[CosmicCowboy]

If the good people all had guns the bad people with guns would be outnumbered.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I can't believe you guys are joking about such things.

Who's joking?

[ElNono]

If the good people all had guns the bad people with guns would be outnumbered.

obviously, the problem is that good/bad are relative terms.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The only reason a bad 5 year old kid with a gun would kill is because a good 5 year old kid with a gun wasn't there to stop him

- NRA
:lmao

[DMX7]

The only reason a bad 5 year old kid with a gun would kill is because a good 5 year old kid with a gun wasn't there to stop him

- NRA

That's true though.

[Winehole23]

lol CC and WC pissing their pants over political small talk amplified through the red team megaphone

[Winehole23]

..when the erosion of the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments is real and ongoing and they ain't saying shit about that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where do you get your incorrect facts from anyway? I didn't see a link. Here is something you might consider, besides what I already posted:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/2012employment.jpg (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf)

Please note that by these numbers, six of the year 2012 months had more job growth than December. I knew your claimed numbers were wrong from the start. Both September and October had more growth. Does the "last several months" mean November only?

Is a job a member of the civilian population? A job and an employed person are not the same thing so try and get some different facts.

[Wild Cobra]

Is a job a member of the civilian population? A job and an employed person are not the same thing so try and get some different facts.
And you still don't furnish any links.

How typical.

[Wild Cobra]

..when the erosion of the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments is real and ongoing and they ain't saying shit about that.
I have voiced concern before.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf

Job figures for the last few months and figures from the government sector indicating that government employment has been dropping since 2008.

I assume that is what you wanted a link of. I figured that it was common knowledge that the economy had been gaining jobs. Considering the threads that you participated in September and October when you focused your wishful thinking towards having the the jobs numbers being wrong so as to pimp Romney. There was plenty of gnashing of teeth about favorable jobs reports from team red.

What is typical is you trying to seem or wishful think things to be other than what they are. It's pretty common knowledge that job growth has been tepid yet consistent. Try paying attention.

[boutons_deux]

"you know that the people aren't going to stand for the bullshit"

"people" don't count. Only corporate $$$ counts.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf

LOL...

Typical fuzzy. You gave us a link that disproves your earlier statement and proves mine. Not far from you saying you prove me wrong on total ocean current movements by linking a surface current study.

You just don't even realize how badly you own yourself, do you?

[Capt Bringdown]

Will We Forget Newtown’s Kids? - E.J. Dionne (http://www.nationalmemo.com/will-we-forget-newtowns-kids/)

The gun lobby and the weapons merchants are counting on our notoriously short national attention span.

They are counting on confusion, obfuscation and the quiet mobilization of allies to create one delay after another. Their hope is to keep Congress from acting quickly to protect children and other innocent Americans from gun rampages. The longer we wait, the less likely we are to act. See: short national attention span.

In 1996, after a mass killing left 35 dead, Australia’s conservative and proudly conventional prime minister, John Howard, presided over a National Firearms Agreement that fundamentally altered his country’s relationship to firearms. And it’s working.

The lesson of Australia is that Obama will lose only if he fails to grasp this once-in-a-lifetime chance to put a permanent end to our debilitating passivity in the face of gun violence. Neither he nor we can allow our attention to waver until the task is completed.
- more -> (http://www.nationalmemo.com/will-we-forget-newtowns-kids/)

[George Gervin's Afro]

he might have lost his mind but we'll see if he is downright crazy..anything unconstitutional could prove dangerous imho. you know that the people aren't going to stand for the bullshit..this much has already been made clear. we will see full scale civil war before any of these draconian measures come to pass.



if that came to pass you would be the first person I would look for... to settle things definitively

[boutons_deux]

"shit will get crazy if he tries anything major regarding guns. no telling what might go down"

typical right-wing wing-nut gun fetishist paranoia, always based on bad faith and overwhelming ignorance.

[boutons_deux]

"National and local experts say that if an abuser has access to a firearm or weapon, the chance of that person killing someone increases dramatically."

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/New-tool-removes-guns-from-domestic-violence-4170577.php#ixzz2HDAVFLxV

more guns means more deaths from homicides and suicides and accidents, but corporate proftis trump all.

2nd Amendment? :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[mavs>spurs]

if that came to pass you would be the first person I would look for... to settle things definitively

Is that a death threat you little punk bitch? Look, I'll lay it out nice and simple for your little retarded wetback ass, if you ever by some chance decide to show your little brown face within a fuckin mile of where I stay I will illustrate the castle doctrine up close and personal so you can understand exactly why we fight for our 2nd amendment rights. My only question to you is, do you prefer .40 cal, .223, or 12 gauge buckshot?

[mavs>spurs]

if you pussy asses had your way, this woman and her kids would be dead

http://myfox8.com/2013/01/06/ga-mom-shoots-intruder-5-times-saves-children/


LOGANVILLE, Ga. — A Georgia mother hid her two 9-year-old twins and shot an intruder, Paul Ali Slater, several times during a home invasion on Friday, according to multiple media reports.The Loganville mother said she didn’t initially answer when someone knocked on her door around 1 p.m. Friday. When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her husband at work, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution (http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/).
He then dialed 911 and his 37-year-old wife gathered their 9-year-old twins and hid them in a crawlspace inside the home.
According to the report, the intruder then forced his way into the home and started “rummaging” through the family’s belongings.
When the suspect went into the closet where the family was hiding ,the woman fired six bullets at the suspect, five of which hit alleged suspect Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area.
“He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/).

The woman fled to a neighbor’s home with her children. The woman and her two children were not injured.
Popular story: Representative reintroduces bill to abolish presidential term limit (http://myfox8.com/2013/01/06/representative-reintroduces-bill-to-abolish-presidential-term-limit/)
The injured intruder stumbled out of the home and attempted to flee in his car. However, he crashed into a wooded area and collapsed in a neighbor’s driveway, according to WSB-TV (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/).
The suspect was arrested at the scene. He was taken to a nearby hospital and is expected to survive.
The victim’s husband said he’s proud of his wife.

See that's what a REAL man does, teaches his wife how to shoot and arms her so that when he's not around she won't become just another statistic. He literally saved the lives of his wife and children by being proactive, and for all you liberal feminist abortion lovers out there, this is what a REAL woman looks like, defending her children instead of murdering them in the womb. You liberal women (and you libtard "men" who act like women too) aren't HALF the woman that this lady is.

[ChumpDumper]

Is that a death threat you little punk bitch? Look, I'll lay it out nice and simple for your little retarded wetback ass, if you ever by some chance decide to show your little brown face within a fuckin mile of where I stay I will illustrate the castle doctrine up close and personal so you can understand exactly why we fight for our 2nd amendment rights. My only question to you is, do you prefer .40 cal, .223, or 12 gauge buckshot?I'm pretty sure a mile from your house is not subject to the castle doctrine.

[CuckingFunt]

if you pussy asses had your way, this woman and her kids would be dead

http://myfox8.com/2013/01/06/ga-mom-shoots-intruder-5-times-saves-children/



See that's what a REAL man does, teaches his wife how to shoot and arms her so that when he's not around she won't become just another statistic. He literally saved the lives of his wife and children by being proactive, and for all you liberal feminist abortion lovers out there, this is what a REAL woman looks like, defending her children instead of murdering them in the womb. You liberal women (and you libtard "men" who act like women too) aren't HALF the woman that this lady is.

Even though I've personally chosen not to own a gun, I generally have no problem with people who use them to fight off a legitimate threat. And I do consider someone breaking into your home to be a legitimate threat.

That said, your assertion that this woman and her children would have been dead if not for her actions is simply not supported by anything in the quoted article. Unless they left if out of the article for some reason, it seems as though the intruder may not have been armed himself.

[DMX7]

if you pussy asses had your way, this woman and her kids would be dead

http://myfox8.com/2013/01/06/ga-mom-shoots-intruder-5-times-saves-children/



See that's what a REAL man does, teaches his wife how to shoot and arms her so that when he's not around she won't become just another statistic. He literally saved the lives of his wife and children by being proactive, and for all you liberal feminist abortion lovers out there, this is what a REAL woman looks like, defending her children instead of murdering them in the womb. You liberal women (and you libtard "men" who act like women too) aren't HALF the woman that this lady is.

No relevant politician is suggesting banning all guns, dummy. How many times does that have to be said before it sinks in?

[DMX7]

I'm pretty sure a mile from your house is not subject to the castle doctrine.

It's his 1st amendment right to be overtly retarded.

[mavs>spurs]

Fuckhead, they are proposing to ban anything modern or relevant with their 10 bullet capacity rule. It's a huge first step and it can't be allowed to happen.

[ChumpDumper]

Fuckhead, they are proposing to ban anything modern or relevant with their 10 bullet capacity rule. It's a huge first step and it can't be allowed to happen.Eh, you're not going to shoot anyone over it.

[TSA]

These gun restrictions are always so well thought out.
Libs: Limit them to 10 round clips! That'll show them!
VT shooter: 10 round clips? Ok. Fill up the backpack with 10 round clips.

[DMX7]

Fuckhead, they are proposing to ban anything modern or relevant with their 10 bullet capacity rule. It's a huge first step and it can't be allowed to happen.

Banning high capacity magazines is not banning modern weapons, and if it really were for self defense than you could use a WWI era handgun and be just as safe as the woman in the article.

lol slippery slope.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuckhead, they are proposing to ban anything modern or relevant with their 10 bullet capacity rule. It's a huge first step and it can't be allowed to happen.
LOL

One Glock model holds 17 rounds. That sucks.

[ChumpDumper]

These gun restrictions are always so well thought out.
Libs: Limit them to 10 round clips! That'll show them!
VT shooter: 10 round clips? Ok. Fill up the backpack with 10 round clips.Tuscon shooter: Damn I can't fire 31 shots before being disarmed when reloading.

I'm not convinced it would help, but it isn't completely without logic.

[TSA]

Tuscon shooter: Damn I can't fire 31 shots before being disarmed when reloading.

I'm not convinced it would help, but it isn't completely without logic.

It won't help. It will make people feel safer, but feeling safer is not being safer. The guns and their capacity is not the problem.

[ChumpDumper]

It won't help. It will make people feel safer, but feeling safer is not being safer. The guns and their capacity is not the problem.Hey, Loughner was stopped by unarmed people when he was reloading. If one side of the debate can ask "What if mingus was there with a gun?" the other side can certainly ask "What if that asshole could only shoot 10 times before reloading instead of 30?"

[TSA]

So you're saying you'd feel safer if people could only carry 10 rounds instead of 30?

[DMX7]

It won't help. It will make people feel safer, but feeling safer is not being safer. The guns and their capacity is not the problem.

limiting magazine size is part of a holistic and comprehensive approach to reducing this type of violence. Your side offers nothing practical.

[TSA]

limiting magazine size is part of a holistic and comprehensive approach to reducing this type of violence.How'd those limited 10 round clips work out at Virginia Tech?

[ChumpDumper]

So you're saying you'd feel safer if people could only carry 10 rounds instead of 30?No, I'm not saying that. I wouldn't feel any safer were mingus sitting in a theater I was in either.

[TSA]

No, I'm not saying that. I wouldn't feel any safer were mingus sitting in a theater I was in either.

Say you are in said theatre and Mingus stands up and shouts out that he is going to kill everyone in it. Would you want a gun on you or would you want to hide behind your seat?

[ChumpDumper]

Say you are in said theatre and Mingus stands up and shouts out that he is going to kill everyone in it. Would you want a gun on you or would you want to hide behind your seat?I don't think mingus is stupid enough to announce his intentions in that case.

There is no way in hell I am going to live in such abject fear that I will go to a fucking movie packing.

If mingus starts shooting at you in a theater whether you have a gun or not, would you rather have him be able to fire 30 shots before reloading or 10?

[Blake]

Say you are in said theatre and Mingus stands up and shouts out that he is going to kill everyone in it. Would you want a gun on you or would you want to hide behind your seat?

What exactly would you do with your gun in this situation?

Have you ever practiced shooting in a dark theater?

[ChumpDumper]

What exactly would you do with your gun in this situation?He would stand up and shout that he also has a gun and will shoot mingus and probably a few people around him.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It won't help. It will make people feel safer, but feeling safer is not being safer. The guns and their capacity is not the problem.

You have no evidence that the status quo leads to more safety. Quite the contrary. The deterrence model has no evidence because FFA gun laws like our own lead to some very dangerous places.

The question at that point is what places are safe ie have low gun deaths crime homicides etc. When you look its the UK, Japan and Western Europe and what type of gun laws correlate there.

All the shit that comes out of your mouth are either 1) deterrence assertions or 2) gun sales are up.

And if mingus was in the same theater as me I would feel less safe because he might wave his pistol at anyone that hit on his girlfriend.

[TSA]

I don't think mingus is stupid enough to announce his intentions in that case.

There is no way in hell I am going to live in such abject fear that I will go to a fucking movie packing.

If mingus starts shooting at you in a theater whether you have a gun or not, would you rather have him be able to fire 30 shots before reloading or 10?10, for sure. And I don't conceal carry so I'd never have one in a movie theater either, was just curious.

You're at your house and an armed intruder is downstairs, do you want a gun or would you rather rely on another form of self defense?

[DMX7]

How'd those limited 10 round clips work out at Virginia Tech?

Are you 12 years old? Your reading comprehension isn't very good. Try again.

[ChumpDumper]

10, for sure. And I don't conceal carry so I'd never have one in a movie theater either, was just curious.

You're at your house and an armed intruder is downstairs, do you want a gun or would you rather rely on another form of self defense?You're losing a gun argument. Do you want to just concede the point or move the goalposts and hope to get away with it?

[ChumpDumper]

I should probably add an ad hominem option.

[TSA]

You're losing a gun argument. Do you want to just concede the point or move the goalposts and hope to get away with it?

Fuck the goalposts, answer the question. Would you want to have firearm in your possession if you were confronted with an armed intruder in your house?

[mavs>spurs]

"would you rather have him be able to fire 30 shots before reloading or 10?"

lol before reloading. there is no reloading if you just carry extra clips. it's as simple as fingering your butthole to put it in terms you would understand. these restrictions are just feel good measures for insecure liberals.

[DMX7]

TSA is really fucking up that strawman he built.

[ChumpDumper]

Fuck the goalposts, answer the question. Would you want to have firearm in your possession if you were confronted with an armed intruder in your house?Gun possession at the home was never at issue. Why did you make it so?

Nevermind. We figured it out.


"would you rather have him be able to fire 30 shots before reloading or 10?"

lol before reloading. there is no reloading if you just carry extra clips. it's as simple as fingering your butthole to put it in terms you would understand. these restrictions are just feel good measures for insecure liberals. What does one do with the extra clips?

[mavs>spurs]

just push a button and pop it in simple as you popping your finger into your ass tbh

[ChumpDumper]

just push a button and pop it in simple as you popping your finger into your ass tbhWell, a mass killer got stopped by an unarmed 61 year old woman when he was trying to reload a magazine. Perhaps it's not as simple in that kind of situation as you think.

Feel free to tell us all how much better a mass murderer you would be in a similar situation.

[mavs>spurs]

i'm actually familiar with firearms and it is. if you think you can escape in 2 seconds then why don't you let me give you a 2 second headstart with nonlethal bean bags and lets see if it makes a difference.

[ChumpDumper]

Called it.

[TSA]

Gun possession at the home was never at issue. Why did you make it so?
I answered your question about 10 or 30 in a movie theater. I said 10. We are now moving on, as you've still failed to answer the question. I answered yours, now please do me the same courtesy. Would you want to have a firearm in your possession if there was an armed intruder in your house? Simple yes or no.

[mavs>spurs]

you actually edited your post to include that, it wasn't there before. and i didn't say anything about murdering anyone.

[ChumpDumper]

I answered your question about 10 or 30 in a movie theater. I said 10.Thanks for your practical support of magazine capacity restrictions.

I never said anything about opposing the use of firearms for protecting one's home, so I'm not going to facilitate any straw man construction here.

[ChumpDumper]

you actually edited your post to include that, it wasn't there before.It was there before your post. My calling it stands.
and i didn't say anything about murdering anyone.So your proposed demonstration would be worthless.

[mavs>spurs]

nope, itd be fun to pop your ass with a bean bag tee hee. i promise slapping a clip in only takes 2-3 sec max. but continue on with your feel good regulations that won't pass tbh.

[George Gervin's Afro]

nope, itd be fun to pop your ass with a bean bag tee hee. i promise slapping a clip in only takes 2-3 sec max. but continue on with your feel good regulations that won't pass tbh.

yea it would be fun to pop your ass...

[ChumpDumper]

nope, itd be fun to pop your ass with a bean bag tee hee. i promise slapping a clip in only takes 2-3 sec max.again, a mass killer was stopped by a 61 year old woman when he tried to reload.
but continue on with your feel good regulations that won't pass tbh.I never said it would pass.

[rascal]

Even though I've personally chosen not to own a gun, I generally have no problem with people who use them to fight off a legitimate threat. And I do consider someone breaking into your home to be a legitimate threat.

That said, your assertion that this woman and her children would have been dead if not for her actions is simply not supported by anything in the quoted article. Unless they left if out of the article for some reason, it seems as though the intruder may not have been armed himself.

Good point. She probably could have scared him off by yelling Boo. Guy was just after some jewelry and would not have even entered had he known someone was home.

[mavs>spurs]

that's probably because he was somewhat mentally retarded

[mavs>spurs]

yea it would be fun to pop your ass...

you heard what i said, go ahead and try it. i wouldn't bat an eye nor feel bad for your dumb brown ass tbh.

[ChumpDumper]

that's probably because he was somewhat mentally retardedAnd this is different from you how?

[DMX7]

that's probably because he was somewhat mentally retarded

So was Adam Lanza.

[mavs>spurs]

so then tell the government to quit drugging up mentally deficient people to use as patsies and then use it to try to take away MY rights

[mavs>spurs]

And this is different from you how?

so then lets put up or shut up tbh, my non lethal bean bag vs your pale frail white body tbh. i'll start with the clip in my pocket and we will see if it enables you to evade and change the outcome.

[ChumpDumper]

so then lets put up or shut up tbh, my non lethal bean bag vs your pale frail white body tbh. i'll start with the clip in my pocket and we will see if it enables you to evade and change the outcome.OK, I get a chance to knock it out of your hands while you load it.

[mavs>spurs]

of course..it'll be more fun from up close prob hurt a hell of a lot more tbh

[rascal]

He would stand up and shout that he also has a gun and will shoot mingus and probably a few people around him.

He will just start firing and hope he hits the right guy.

[ChumpDumper]

He will just start firing and hope he hits the right guy.CROFL

[Das Texan]

so then tell the government to quit drugging up mentally deficient people to use as patsies and then use it to try to take away MY rights

well technically MY rights have been bastardized over the last 10 years or so since the 1st Amendment seems to be nothing more than a piece of paper with words on it anymore.

might as well go after the 2nd for a change I guess.

[mavs>spurs]

i'm every bit as big on protecting the first amendment as i am the second tbh and that's a whole new can of worms you just opened up. it's a packaged deal, we either get all 10 or we start living in the white version of north korea.

[ChumpDumper]

that's probably because he was somewhat mentally retardedI haven't found anything stating Loughner was mentally retarded.

Do you have a link to that information or were you just making it up?

[mavs>spurs]

i was being slightly sarcastic and exaggerating but something is wrong with that kid, he isn't normal. looks slow tbh.

[ChumpDumper]

i was being slightly sarcastic and exaggerating but something is wrong with that kid, he isn't normal. looks slow tbh.OK, you just made it up.

No problem.

[mavs>spurs]

loughner ain't all there, didn't make that up

[ChumpDumper]

loughner ain't all there, didn't make that upHe's not retarded. You made that up.

[mavs>spurs]

i said retarded was an exaggeration, you're kind of slow also for not getting that. retarded is sometimes used rather loosely, even as an insult. like i just did. retard.

[ChumpDumper]

i said retarded was an exaggeration, you're kind of slow also for not getting that. retarded is sometimes used rather loosely, even as an insult. like i just did. retard.Eh, you walked back, admitted you made it up and now are trying out some ad hominems to distract from your folly.

No big deal.

[TSA]

Thanks for your practical support of magazine capacity restrictions.I don't support it, I'd just rather have him with a 10 round clip so it would give a few more seconds to scarf some sour patch kids before he dropped his clip, popped another one in and then proceeded to blast my ass.


I never said anything about opposing the use of firearms for protecting one's home, so I'm not going to facilitate any straw man construction here.I asked for a simple yes or no. Forget the movie theater for a second and respond to what I asked. It's not hard, yet a yes or no from you is like pulling teeth. Would you, CHUMPDUMPER, like a firearm to protect you if you had an armed intruder in your house? Yes or no?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't support it, I'd just rather have him with a 10 round clip so it would give a few more seconds to scarf some sour patch kids before he dropped his clip, popped another one in and then proceeded to blast my ass.I called it practical support.


I asked for a simple yes or no. Forget the movie theater for a second and respond to what I asked. It's not hard, yet a yes or no from you is like pulling teeth. Would you, CHUMPDUMPER, like a firearm to protect you if you had an armed intruder in your house? Yes or no?Why did you fall back to this non-argument? This was never at issue and still isn't.

[TSA]

I called it practical support.

Why did you fall back to this non-argument? This was never at issue and still isn't.
At this point I'm simply curious, and its funny how you won't answer. Again.....



I asked for a simple yes or no. Forget the movie theater for a second and respond to what I asked. It's not hard, yet a yes or no from you is like pulling teeth. Would you, CHUMPDUMPER, like a firearm to protect you if you had an armed intruder in your house? Yes or no?

[ChumpDumper]

At this point I'm simply curious, and its funny how you won't answer. Again.....



I asked for a simple yes or no. Forget the movie theater for a second and respond to what I asked. It's not hard, yet a yes or no from you is like pulling teeth. Would you, CHUMPDUMPER, like a firearm to protect you if you had an armed intruder in your house? Yes or no?It's funny how you fell back to this as if it's some kind of gotcha, and yeah -- my not answering is getting funny considering your repeated questioning. I believe I have voted with my feet in that I do not currently have a gun within my reach at all times at home in preparation for every possible scenario -- something that would be fairly easy to do in some form.

I just don't feel the need. If I'm wrong and die in a hail of gunfire when m>s finally finds out where I live, I can have the executor of my estate post an admission of my poor judgment under this screen name.

Would that make everything OK?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A personal hypothetical anecdote is the basis of his argument now. Lovely.

[ChumpDumper]

A personal hypothetical anecdote is the basis of his argument now. Lovely.I don't even know if there's an argument anymore.

[TSA]

It's funny how you fell back to this as if it's some kind of gotcha, and yeah -- my not answering is getting funny considering your repeated questioning. I believe I have voted with my feet in that I do not currently have a gun within my reach at all times at home in preparation for every possible scenario -- something that would be fairly easy to do in some form.

I just don't feel the need. If I'm wrong and die in a hail of gunfire when m>s finally finds out where I live, I can have the executor of my estate post an admission of my poor judgment under this screen name.

Would that make everything OK?so you own a firearm?

[spursncowboys]

No payscale in the Army all the way to O-11 will see a raise in taxes so we know you won't see a tax increase.
dividend
capital gains
tricare
social security withholdings

[spursncowboys]

No payscale in the Army all the way to O-11 will see a raise in taxes so we know you won't see a tax increase.

We have been experiencing economic growth of about 1.75% for the past two years. The economy added more jobs this past December as it had for the previous several months. Why let facts get in the way though?

Come on. You know exactly why Dec has an increase in jobs. How many of those new jobs are long term or full-time?
I would state 1.75% as a good thing. That's like getting a pay increase at 1% (mine) when inflation is anywhere from 4-7%.

[ChumpDumper]

so you own a firearm?Yes. It's not currently in town. Let me be clear -- I do not oppose those who keep firearms more or less at the ready if they do so safely. I shot a lot of different guns when I was younger; parts of my family are very much into them. It's just not something I ever thought much about in terms of personal protection. Might feel different if I had kids, etc (though that really would require a commitment to the gun culture), but for now this is it.

[boutons_deux]

If the dickless super-patriot macho man gun fetishists think Obama has lost his mind, then Obama is on the right track for the country.

[TSA]

Yes. It's not currently in town. Let me be clear -- I do not oppose those who keep firearms more or less at the ready if they do so safely. I shot a lot of different guns when I was younger; parts of my family are very much into them. It's just not something I ever thought much about in terms of personal protection. Might feel different if I had kids, etc (though that really would require a commitment to the gun culture), but for now this is it.
Thank you. An answer. I was honestly just curious and wanted to know where you stood.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Come on. You know exactly why Dec has an increase in jobs. How many of those new jobs are long term or full-time?
I would state 1.75% as a good thing. That's like getting a pay increase at 1% (mine) when inflation is anywhere from 4-7%.

Dividend tax nor capital gains increase apply to those making under $400k. The medicare withholding only applies to people making over $200k so unless you have a star on your shoulder you aren't seeing any increase. You still get to have the lowest taxes a generation has seen since the stock market crashed in 1929.

There are a ton of jobs available in the health care industry. I linked the jobs report earlier. With the Obamacare stuff going effective this year there is an anticipation of demand. No jobs report is going to look good until construction does something and that has been weak for the better part of a decade now.

It's going to be interesting to see how the next 20 years go with the labor supply shrinking. Not a bad situation to be supplying labor in I am guessing.

[CuckingFunt]

of course..it'll be more fun from up close prob hurt a hell of a lot more tbh

Queer.

[DMC]

Queer.

You going to begin studying him now?

[CuckingFunt]

You going to begin studying him now?

Just keep following me around and you'll find out eventually.

[mavs>spurs]

You going to begin studying him now?

LOL

http://www.pakalertpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/D.U.M.B.-Nuclear-Blasts.gif

[Capt Bringdown]

In constant fear and panic, so much so that you don't trust law enforcement and feel compelled to arm yourself against violent attacks - this is the psychology of a prisoner and not that of a free citizen living in a civil society.

[boutons_deux]

"civil society"

right-wingers don't GAF about questions or observations about quality of life, what kind of civilization America is where the fun industry can stampede 10Ms of dumbfucks into subsidizing the gun industry, where anybody can get a gun anywhere on a whim, etc, etc.

[mavs>spurs]

Not true, u have to go through an FBI background check and the Connecticut shooter was denied 3 times. We need access to mental healthcare and banning Prozac.

[boutons_deux]

"access to mental healthcare"

Repugs response: "we're broke because we cut the 1%'s taxes, so go get some charity org to fix your head, head-case"

[CosmicCowboy]

This article was posted by retired Delta team leader MSG Paul Howe. I think it sheds some true "factual knowledge" on a lot of rumor and hype as of late.

On January 3rd, 2013, posted in: Paul Howe

I have quietly watched and evaluated the in pouring of e-mails reference the liberal’s intent to seize guns and crush the second amendment. I want to add a few of my own thoughts on this issue as I have worked in and around all the people who could be tasked to seize your guns.
WHO’S COMING TO GET THEM?
United Nations (UN)
We are the UN. Other countries mostly join the U.N. to secure money, funding and training and few have any offensive combat capability. Most serve as guards at static locations and have no will to fight. America is the enforcement arm of the U.N. We have the money, equipment, personnel and lift platforms to get the job done.
If the president ever let the U.N. in this country, it would be a foreign invasion and armed Americans would stand up and crush them in a day. Our government would break down and the president would be ousted for letting foreign militaries invade our country.
Federal Government Military
Having served over 20 years in our military, I know that most soldiers would refuse the order to take part in the confiscation of weapons. First, the president would have to give the order, which is an “Illegal Order” in violation of the constitution. I don’t believe that service members would go back into the communities that raised them and conduct raids on good Americans in violation of the constitution.
Remember, these forces would have to come from a military base that is surrounded and supported by American communities. Civilians would simply cease to support the bases and they would fold in a short time. Cut of the fuel, food, electricity on bases and this would stop the silliness. Also, many, many service members live in the communities and they would have to travel from their houses to base unless they were locked down. In that case, their families would still be in the community and people would not be too friendly to those supporting these actions.
Federal Government DHS or TSA
The Federal government is not large enough or talented enough to seize guns. If they were to do 5-8 raids a day seizing guns, they would be physically and mentally exhausted and need a break. Physically conducting raids is exhausting. After the first few raids, the word would get out and Americans would start to fight back. It would take one good ambush from a house or along a travel route to decimate a tactical force or make it combat ineffective
Next, most Federal Agencies work out of a fixed location centrally located in a community. Also, their personnel live in those communities along with their families. Once the word got out that they were doing raids in violation to the constitution, they and their families would be at risk. If they were to start raiding houses, kicking in doors and breaking in windows looking for legally owned guns, their homes would be subject to the same treatment by Americans rising up to defend themselves. They would shortly find themselves without a place to live.
State Law Enforcement
The Governor would have to order State and Local Law Enforcement to either:
Seize guns
Ignore the Federal Orders
If they ignore the Federal Orders, things would be tense, but people would be civil. If they started to seize guns, they only have limited people and assets to do this. Much the same consequences would take place as with the Federal Government.
Local Law Enforcement
Local Police and Sheriff Departments are the backbone of who protects American Citizens. A Sheriff or Chief of Police would have to give the order for his people to begin to seize weapons. Their people would either comply or see it as an illegal order and refuse.
Remember, Chiefs and Sheriff’s also have to live and work in the same communities they serve. As I described with the Federal Government, local Tactical Teams could probably only do 8-10 hits in a day and then need a break. So they hit ten houses and seize their guns, the word would get out and now they are subject to living in the same community as those they are attacking. It would not go well. Also, after one or two determined Americans or combat vets fought back, the team would lose many to death or injury and they would have made a decision whether to continue to push the fight. Remember also, they have to sleep sometime. Their homes and families would be at risk. It is an ugly scenario at best.
Nation of Combat Veterans and Patriots
Having been at war for over 10 years, we have a nation of combat vets and contractors that have seen more action than many of our WWII vets. It has been said that only a small percentage of Americans stood up to the British War machine in the Revolutionary War. Americans are better armed and trained today than at any time in our nation’s history. Think about what would happen if just our nation’s veterans stood up. People have been buying more guns and ammunition in the past five years than any time in my life. The guns and ammunition are out there along with the talent to use them.
Kool-Aid Drinkers
Kool-Aid Drinkers is the term I use to describe the Jonestown voluntarily massacre where the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project, a dedicated community western Guyana by the Peoples Temple led by cult leader Jim Jones intentionally drank poison Kool-Aid. Over 900 people died.
In every law enforcement, government and military agency or branch, there are a small number of Kool-Aid drinkers who would blindly follow orders. They would either be purged internally by their co-workers or people they attacked would stop their gene pool.
Also, at the police tactical team level, all members “volunteer” for the job and they can have the individual integrity to terminate their team service at any time if their profession becomes corrupt or misguided. I know many a good officer that has done that in the past.
Finally, there would be a certain number of American Kool-Aid drinkers that would turn in their weapons if asked. I believe it would be a small percentage as there are always those that do not have the will to resist or fight and they are not needed should thing get tough.
History of “Gun-Free Zones”
Our nation’s history is filled with examples of “gun-free” zones failed.
The Aurora Colorado movie massacre and the recent Connecticut shooting are two that come to mind. Also, remember the Fort Hood massacre where an Islamic extremist Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 soldiers because our military bases are gun free zones. Combat trained soldiers had to be rescued by a security guard. That is embarrassing.
Evil came to all of these places and everyone was disarmed and not ready to fight back because they were gun free zones.
Think what would happen at a national level if the American people were disarmed. Another evil would come along either from inside our country or outside of it and resulting in our downfall.
How about others in recent history:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
Solutions
Write your state representatives and let them know how you feel about this issue. I would like to think that most states would refuse the order.
Next, at the local level, talk to your Sheriff or Chief of Police and ask them if they would allow or support the federal government in their confiscation of firearms. Put them on the spot now and hold them accountable. I like to think that most states would refuse the order.
Should firearm confiscation begin, solutions are simple. If they cannot live in a community, they cannot work in a community. If their house goes away while they are at work confiscating guns, so be it. Allow them to leave with their family and what possessions they can pack in their car. Point them to California and let them know all the Hollywood types would be happy to financially support them in the fantasy land they wish to live in and that they are not welcome in Free America.
In the end I believe that guns are the glue that hold our country together. Guns keep the government in check and the individual American safe and free. Remove guns and the government will no longer be controlled by the people. The government will control the people.
Finally, it is claimed that the Battles of Lexington and Concord, in 1775 were started because General Gage attempted to carry out an order by the British government to disarm the population resulting in the “Shot heard round the world.”
About the Author
Paul R. Howe is a 20-year veteran and former Special Operations soldier and instructor. He owns Combat Shooting and Tactics (CSAT), where he consults with, trains and evaluates law enforcement and government agencies in technical and tactical techniques throughout the special operations spectrum. See www.combatshootingandtactics.com for details.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I got to the part where it started with the 'liberal' tag followed with machisom about what we would do versus the UN and lost interest. Saw the poor formatting as a whole and felt better about my decision. Could you bold the important parts or summarize?

[ChumpDumper]

Gotta be honest. When anyone brings up the UN in a gun discussion I start to zone out.

[ElNono]

Lots of this written stuff would be much more credible if it didn't largely appeal to FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).

[boutons_deux]

This article was posted by retired Delta team leader MSG Paul Howe. I think it sheds some true "factual knowledge" on a lot of rumor and hype as of late.

On January 3rd, 2013, posted in: Paul Howe

I have quietly watched and evaluated the in pouring of e-mails reference the liberal’s intent to seize guns and crush the second amendment. I want to add a few of my own thoughts on this issue as I have worked in and around all the people who could be tasked to seize your guns.
WHO’S COMING TO GET THEM?
United Nations (UN)
We are the UN. Other countries mostly join the U.N. to secure money, funding and training and few have any offensive combat capability. Most serve as guards at static locations and have no will to fight. America is the enforcement arm of the U.N. We have the money, equipment, personnel and lift platforms to get the job done.
If the president ever let the U.N. in this country, it would be a foreign invasion and armed Americans would stand up and crush them in a day. Our government would break down and the president would be ousted for letting foreign militaries invade our country.
Federal Government Military
Having served over 20 years in our military, I know that most soldiers would refuse the order to take part in the confiscation of weapons. First, the president would have to give the order, which is an “Illegal Order” in violation of the constitution. I don’t believe that service members would go back into the communities that raised them and conduct raids on good Americans in violation of the constitution.
Remember, these forces would have to come from a military base that is surrounded and supported by American communities. Civilians would simply cease to support the bases and they would fold in a short time. Cut of the fuel, food, electricity on bases and this would stop the silliness. Also, many, many service members live in the communities and they would have to travel from their houses to base unless they were locked down. In that case, their families would still be in the community and people would not be too friendly to those supporting these actions.
Federal Government DHS or TSA
The Federal government is not large enough or talented enough to seize guns. If they were to do 5-8 raids a day seizing guns, they would be physically and mentally exhausted and need a break. Physically conducting raids is exhausting. After the first few raids, the word would get out and Americans would start to fight back. It would take one good ambush from a house or along a travel route to decimate a tactical force or make it combat ineffective
Next, most Federal Agencies work out of a fixed location centrally located in a community. Also, their personnel live in those communities along with their families. Once the word got out that they were doing raids in violation to the constitution, they and their families would be at risk. If they were to start raiding houses, kicking in doors and breaking in windows looking for legally owned guns, their homes would be subject to the same treatment by Americans rising up to defend themselves. They would shortly find themselves without a place to live.
State Law Enforcement
The Governor would have to order State and Local Law Enforcement to either:
Seize guns
Ignore the Federal Orders
If they ignore the Federal Orders, things would be tense, but people would be civil. If they started to seize guns, they only have limited people and assets to do this. Much the same consequences would take place as with the Federal Government.
Local Law Enforcement
Local Police and Sheriff Departments are the backbone of who protects American Citizens. A Sheriff or Chief of Police would have to give the order for his people to begin to seize weapons. Their people would either comply or see it as an illegal order and refuse.
Remember, Chiefs and Sheriff’s also have to live and work in the same communities they serve. As I described with the Federal Government, local Tactical Teams could probably only do 8-10 hits in a day and then need a break. So they hit ten houses and seize their guns, the word would get out and now they are subject to living in the same community as those they are attacking. It would not go well. Also, after one or two determined Americans or combat vets fought back, the team would lose many to death or injury and they would have made a decision whether to continue to push the fight. Remember also, they have to sleep sometime. Their homes and families would be at risk. It is an ugly scenario at best.
Nation of Combat Veterans and Patriots
Having been at war for over 10 years, we have a nation of combat vets and contractors that have seen more action than many of our WWII vets. It has been said that only a small percentage of Americans stood up to the British War machine in the Revolutionary War. Americans are better armed and trained today than at any time in our nation’s history. Think about what would happen if just our nation’s veterans stood up. People have been buying more guns and ammunition in the past five years than any time in my life. The guns and ammunition are out there along with the talent to use them.
Kool-Aid Drinkers
Kool-Aid Drinkers is the term I use to describe the Jonestown voluntarily massacre where the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project, a dedicated community western Guyana by the Peoples Temple led by cult leader Jim Jones intentionally drank poison Kool-Aid. Over 900 people died.
In every law enforcement, government and military agency or branch, there are a small number of Kool-Aid drinkers who would blindly follow orders. They would either be purged internally by their co-workers or people they attacked would stop their gene pool.
Also, at the police tactical team level, all members “volunteer” for the job and they can have the individual integrity to terminate their team service at any time if their profession becomes corrupt or misguided. I know many a good officer that has done that in the past.
Finally, there would be a certain number of American Kool-Aid drinkers that would turn in their weapons if asked. I believe it would be a small percentage as there are always those that do not have the will to resist or fight and they are not needed should thing get tough.
History of “Gun-Free Zones”
Our nation’s history is filled with examples of “gun-free” zones failed.
The Aurora Colorado movie massacre and the recent Connecticut shooting are two that come to mind. Also, remember the Fort Hood massacre where an Islamic extremist Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 soldiers because our military bases are gun free zones. Combat trained soldiers had to be rescued by a security guard. That is embarrassing.
Evil came to all of these places and everyone was disarmed and not ready to fight back because they were gun free zones.
Think what would happen at a national level if the American people were disarmed. Another evil would come along either from inside our country or outside of it and resulting in our downfall.
How about others in recent history:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
Solutions
Write your state representatives and let them know how you feel about this issue. I would like to think that most states would refuse the order.
Next, at the local level, talk to your Sheriff or Chief of Police and ask them if they would allow or support the federal government in their confiscation of firearms. Put them on the spot now and hold them accountable. I like to think that most states would refuse the order.
Should firearm confiscation begin, solutions are simple. If they cannot live in a community, they cannot work in a community. If their house goes away while they are at work confiscating guns, so be it. Allow them to leave with their family and what possessions they can pack in their car. Point them to California and let them know all the Hollywood types would be happy to financially support them in the fantasy land they wish to live in and that they are not welcome in Free America.
In the end I believe that guns are the glue that hold our country together. Guns keep the government in check and the individual American safe and free. Remove guns and the government will no longer be controlled by the people. The government will control the people.
Finally, it is claimed that the Battles of Lexington and Concord, in 1775 were started because General Gage attempted to carry out an order by the British government to disarm the population resulting in the “Shot heard round the world.”
About the Author
Paul R. Howe is a 20-year veteran and former Special Operations soldier and instructor. He owns Combat Shooting and Tactics (CSAT), where he consults with, trains and evaluates law enforcement and government agencies in technical and tactical techniques throughout the special operations spectrum. See www.combatshootingandtactics.com (http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com) for details.

what's this gun fetishist's point(s)? nothing but gun industry/NRA talking points, dressed as "FACTS" of history and govt.

[CosmicCowboy]

Damn. Biden says Obama is gonna try to bypass congress and do it by executive order.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html

[ElNono]

"There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required"

[TeyshaBlue]

Damn. Biden says Obama is gonna try to bypass congress and do it by executive order.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html

This is also Biden speaking. Take this with about a ton of salt.

[vy65]

The president has already endorsed a renewal of the assault weapons ban, improving background checks of potential gun buyers, and introducing restrictions on the sizes of high-capacity ammunition magazines.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/home/2013/01/09/biden-meets-with-gun-control-groups/1820393/

Really? This is what you gun control nuts are freaking out about?

[DarrinS]

I got to the part where it started with the 'liberal' tag followed with machisom about what we would do versus the UN and lost interest. Saw the poor formatting as a whole and felt better about my decision. Could you bold the important parts or summarize?

WTF is a machisom?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

WTF is a machisom?

That you can not decipher a typo is telling.

[ElNono]

The president has already endorsed a renewal of the assault weapons ban, improving background checks of potential gun buyers, and introducing restrictions on the sizes of high-capacity ammunition magazines.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/home/2013/01/09/biden-meets-with-gun-control-groups/1820393/

Really? This is what you gun control nuts are freaking out about?

Clearly going to turn the US into Cambodia, Uganda or Guatemala

[DarrinS]

Clearly going to turn the US into Cambodia, Uganda or Guatemala

Scoreboard

ElNono: 1
Straw: 0

[ChumpDumper]

Scoreboard

ElNono: 1
Straw: 0Blue text is lost on some here.

And Pol Pot has definitely been cited here and there in the public discourse.

[ElNono]

Somebody posted an article in this very thread that included:

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

:rolleyes

[CosmicCowboy]

Somebody posted an article in this very thread that included:

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

:rolleyes

Are you claiming this is not factually correct?

[Th'Pusher]

Are you claiming this is not factually correct?
Are you claiming there is a chance in hell the US would use gun control to confiscate guns in an effort to exterminate large groups of US citizens? The Tinfoil hat is sitting right there next to your assault style weapon CC, you just need to put it on your head.

[CosmicCowboy]

Are you claiming there is a chance in hell the US would use gun control to confiscate guns in an effort to exterminate large groups of US citizens? The Tinfoil hat is sitting right there next to your assault style weapon CC, you just need to put it on your head.

Quit trying to put words in my mouth I didn't say you fucking asshole.

But yes, I'm sure Obama would be fine with confiscating guns if he thought he could get away with it.

[ElNono]

Are you claiming this is not factually correct?

For starters, the claims are dubious at best.

But the actual question is, are you claiming the US will turn into any of those countries? If yes, what do you base that on?

[CosmicCowboy]

For starters, the claims are dubious at best.

But the actual question is, are you claiming the US will turn into any of those countries? If yes, what do you base that on?

Well to start with the claims are pretty authentic. I don't know for sure about Guatemala, but I do know about Idi Amin and Pol Pot. Amnesty International claims even higher numbers than the article. Sorry it doesn't jibe with your political dogma.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Quit trying to put words in my mouth I didn't say you fucking asshole.

But yes, I'm sure Obama would be fine with confiscating guns if he thought he could get away with it.

That is not what he asked he asked if you felt the end was mass executions by our government.

What I would like to ask the SEAL is if he felt that the guns that are not currently banned could stop him and his units if they decided they wanted to go Pol Pott. Personally I think an infantry battalion would ass rape the m>s of this world. Unless we start allowing citizenry heavy equipment like APC, tanks, attack helicopters, jets, helicopters, etc we are at the mercy of the US armed forces. They happen to be the best equipped, trained and experienced fighting force on this planet.

And I also find it troubling that he would intimate that US soldiers would be that insubordinate. It should be noted that the FFA gun laws are not being put out by law enforcement or pentagon brass. After the Ft. Hood muslim rampage, it was a GOP senator that proposed legislation that prohibited commanders from asking their soldiers about private weapons when they were trying to assess the security situation post massacure. Your commander can get up in your ass about not paying your bills but he cannot ask you if you own a gun?

I am noticing a disturbing trend bakc towards vietnam era meddling in military affairs. Between ignoring brass equipment recommendations that would save the US taxpayer and undermining our commanders autority over their subordinates I find it troubling indeed.

[mavs>spurs]

Are you claiming there is a chance in hell the US would use gun control to confiscate guns in an effort to exterminate large groups of US citizens? The Tinfoil hat is sitting right there next to your assault style weapon CC, you just need to put it on your head.

why in the world else would they want to confiscate guns? did any of those other people think their beloved governments would ever do such a thing? did the jews thing it would happen, is that why they stayed instead of fleeing before the holocaust? you keep coming back to the government that has done so much fucked up shit and begging for love like an abused wife.

[ElNono]

Well to start with the claims are pretty authentic. I don't know for sure about Guatemala, but I do know about Idi Amin and Pol Pot. Amnesty International claims even higher numbers than the article. Sorry it doesn't jibe with your political dogma.

So you're saying the US will turn into a dictatorship? :lol

You seem like a good guy, professional help might not be too late at this point.

Oh, and it wasn't just gun control that turned Idi Amin and Pol Pot into fierce dictatorships...

[mavs>spurs]

That is not what he asked he asked if you felt the end was mass executions by our government.


What I would like to ask the SEAL is if he felt that the guns that are not currently banned could stop him and his units if they decided they wanted to go Pol Pott. Personally I think an infantry battalion would ass rape the m>s of this world. Unless we start allowing citizenry heavy equipment like APC, tanks, attack helicopters, jets, helicopters, etc we are at the mercy of the US armed forces. They happen to be the best equipped, trained and experienced fighting force on this planet.

And I also find it troubling that he would intimate that US soldiers would be that insubordinate. It should be noted that the FFA gun laws are not being put out by law enforcement or pentagon brass. After the Ft. Hood muslim rampage, it was a GOP senator that proposed legislation that prohibited commanders from asking their soldiers about private weapons when they were trying to assess the security situation post massacure. Your commander can get up in your ass about not paying your bills but he cannot ask you if you own a gun?

I am noticing a disturbing trend bakc towards vietnam era meddling in military affairs. Between ignoring brass equipment recommendations that would save the US taxpayer and undermining our commanders autority over their subordinates I find it troubling indeed.

US forces aren't firing on american soldiers with high powered weapons and carpet bombing cities, half of them would join the cause. You talk about them being insubordinate, but that's because they serve the constitution and the people NOT the system. Your little sexual fantasy will never ever happen. I can just see you jacking off to a huge crackdown and death of US citizens like you're part of the "winning" team...uhhh yeahhhhh go america gooo uhhhhhhh splooging everywhere. you sick fuck there aren't whispers of a revolution becuase it's easy or fun, its becuase this government has lost all legitimacy.

[CosmicCowboy]

That is not what he asked he asked if you felt the end was mass executions by our government.

What I would like to ask the SEAL is if he felt that the guns that are not currently banned could stop him and his units if they decided they wanted to go Pol Pott. Personally I think an infantry battalion would ass rape the m>s of this world. Unless we start allowing citizenry heavy equipment like APC, tanks, attack helicopters, jets, helicopters, etc we are at the mercy of the US armed forces. They happen to be the best equipped, trained and experienced fighting force on this planet.

And I also find it troubling that he would intimate that US soldiers would be that insubordinate. It should be noted that the FFA gun laws are not being put out by law enforcement or pentagon brass. After the Ft. Hood muslim rampage, it was a GOP senator that proposed legislation that prohibited commanders from asking their soldiers about private weapons when they were trying to assess the security situation post massacure. Your commander can get up in your ass about not paying your bills but he cannot ask you if you own a gun?

:lmao

I'd say the Taliban savages with AK's and pipe bombs have done a pretty fucking good job of standing up against the full military and technological might of the US Military.

[ElNono]

:lol people that think there's going to be some kind of civil war over this need to check themselves before they wreck themselves, tbh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

why in the world else would they want to confiscate guns? did any of those other people think their beloved governments would ever do such a thing? did the jews thing it would happen, is that why they stayed instead of fleeing before the holocaust? you keep coming back to the government that has done so much fucked up shit and begging for love like an abused wife.

So when they banned assault weapons in the 1990s where were the extermination camps? Where was Auschwitz or the Killing Fields? Youre a fucking moron and for all of your bashing of minorities as inferior you paint yourself as scared, blustering simpleton.

[CosmicCowboy]

So you're saying the US will turn into a dictatorship? :lol

You seem like a good guy, professional help might not be too late at this point.

Oh, and it wasn't just gun control that turned Idi Amin and Pol Pot into fierce dictatorships...

I didn't say that, did I. I realize english is your second language but you need to work on your reading comprehension.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

I'd say the Taliban savages with AK's and pipe bombs have done a pretty fucking good job of standing up against the full military and technological might of the US Military.

So you think the Taliban is winning? You think m>s is as experienced, well armed or motivated like the disciples of al Zarqawi? gmfb. Sorry but the taliban would ass rape the IGS.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't say that, did I. I realize english is your second language but you need to work on your reading comprehension.

So you just bring up the article as a talking point and you don't give any credence to it? You posted the shit and all I see you doing is distancing yourself from it. Don't blame you myself.

[CosmicCowboy]

The Viet Cong did a pretty fucking good job too.

http://www.mishalov.com/images/22gialongstreet.gif

[FuzzyLumpkins]

US forces aren't firing on american soldiers with high powered weapons and carpet bombing cities, half of them would join the cause. You talk about them being insubordinate, but that's because they serve the constitution and the people NOT the system. Your little sexual fantasy will never ever happen. I can just see you jacking off to a huge crackdown and death of US citizens like you're part of the "winning" team...uhhh yeahhhhh go america gooo uhhhhhhh splooging everywhere. you sick fuck there aren't whispers of a revolution becuase it's easy or fun, its becuase this government has lost all legitimacy.

my sexual fantasy? you are the one claiming revolution like some Alabama redneck militia.

[CosmicCowboy]

So you think the Taliban is winning? You think m>s is as experienced, well armed or motivated like the disciples of al Zarqawi? gmfb. Sorry but the taliban would ass rape the IGS.

You think the US is winning in that shithole? :lmao:lmao:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Viet Cong did a pretty fucking good job too.

http://www.mishalov.com/images/22gialongstreet.gif

The chinese did a good job. That and our military strategy being dictated by congress. We won every military engagement and never took the fight north to the enemy. If you want to win a guerilla war like that you go Ulysses Grant or Patton on their ass but we were never allowed to do that.

[CosmicCowboy]

The chinese did a good job. That and our military strategy being dictated by congress. We won every military engagement and never took the fight north to the enemy. If you want to win a guerilla war like that you go Ulysses Grant or Patton on their ass but we were never allowed to do that.

:lmao

Don't know your history, do you?

We learned our lesson in Korea. Never get in a ground war with the Chinese.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You think the US is winning in that shithole? :lmao:lmao:lmao

What areas do the taliban control especially after our Kandahar offensive two years ago ie taking the fight to the enemy. Sure they come out of the mountains and blow up a school or recruiting post every now and then but they can hardly be thought of as winning. Al Qaeda in Iraq even operative anymore? Do you think Hamas is 'winning' in Israel?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

Don't know your history, do you?

We learned our lesson in Korea. Never get in a ground war with the Chinese.

Again we get back to your reading comprehension. What did my first sentence say?

[CosmicCowboy]

What areas do the taliban control especially after our Kandahar offensive two years ago ie taking the fight to the enemy. Sure they come out of the mountains and blow up a school or recruiting post every now and then but they can hardly be thought of as winning. Al Qaeda in Iraq even operative anymore? Do you think Hamas is 'winning' in Israel?

Good God child. If you are too lazy to try to educate yourself I'm not going to waste my time trying. You think the US is "winning" in Afghanistan???? :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

Again we get back to your reading comprehension. What did my first sentence say?

You advocated taking the fight north asshole. Tha'ts what McArthur tried to do in Korea and got his fucking ass kicked. We got too close to the Yalu river and the Chinese engaged.

Got DAMN you are one ignorant sumbitch.

[DMC]

my sexual fantasy? you are the one claiming revolution like some Alabama redneck militia.

lol you thinking militias and rednecks are a Southern thing.

[HI-FI]

You going to begin studying him now?
:lmao:lobt2::lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol you thinking militias and rednecks are a Southern thing.

:lol

Your inferences are pretty off target. Just because I said he was of a particular type does not mean that I exclude others from exisitng. So I take it youre a militia member?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You advocated taking the fight north asshole. Tha'ts what McArthur tried to do in Korea and got his fucking ass kicked. We got too close to the Yalu river and the Chinese engaged.

Got DAMN you are one ignorant sumbitch.

So what do you think that I mean when I said "More like the Chinese did a good job' in reply to your assertion that the Viet Cong beat us. I won't disagree that Vietnam was a lost cause because of the Chinese. In fact that was the first thing I said.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Good God child. If you are too lazy to try to educate yourself I'm not going to waste my time trying. You think the US is "winning" in Afghanistan???? :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Are you going to talk about specifics. I brought up our offensive and regions of control, Taliban activity etc. What do we get from you? More posturing. You guys are pretty sad.

Now Afghanistan might well fall apart when we leave but that only serves to underscore my point. You guys seem incapable of discussing details and instead just solely rely on trying to paint me as stupid.

You guys suck at arguing.

[mavs>spurs]

^and you suck at being an American

[ElNono]

I didn't say that, did I. I realize english is your second language but you need to work on your reading comprehension.

I read the article you posted. The strawman was there. I understood it just fine.

Perhaps next time adding a "This is an article I don't agree with:" will make more sense.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

^and you suck at being an American

Sure thing mr. 'were going to execute traitors.' Internet forum threats are cute though. No honor.

[Wild Cobra]

So when they banned assault weapons in the 1990s where were the extermination camps? Where was Auschwitz or the Killing Fields? Youre a fucking moron and for all of your bashing of minorities as inferior you paint yourself as scared, blustering simpleton.
Banning assault weapons was a total joke. All it did was make it illegal to sell cool looking weapons.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

Don't know your history, do you?

We learned our lesson in Korea. Never get in a ground war with the Chinese.
Talk about the human version of army ants....

[Winehole23]

What won't pass: Gun registration database

What will pass: pork spending tacked on that has nothing to do with guns.

The rest is pretty much being done already, and stiffer penalties? Are they going to dig Lanza up and issue him a citation? They should enforce existing laws.Good call, but for enforcing existing laws.

Obama never came for our guns.

[Pavlov]

Ah, yes -- det time Republicans decided they could live with 20 schoolkids getting murdered by a crazy fuck with an assault style weapon.

[Winehole23]

not much has changed