Posted on Oct 5, 2015
Why is this leftist government trying so hard to disarm its people?
11.3K
142
134
7
7
0
What is really behind Obamas constant attemts to disarm America? Is this why he wants a nationalized police force so badly?
Politics
Office of the President (POTUS)
Barack Obama
Conspiracy Theories
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 35
7
7
0
Philosophical difference.
The goal is always to get to the root of the problem. Always. Unfortunately, there are those who view "access to arms" as the root of the problem. They believe that removing access will solve the issue.
Unfortunately, it does solve a "symptom of the problem" but often transfers the issue elsewhere.
If we take a look at all the complaints of "(easy) access to firearms" which are generally speaking: Suicides & Violence, removing a specific tool doesn't fix those. Countries with "no" access still have those problems at similar rates. Removing guns doesn't fix Suicide. Removing guns doesn't fix violence.
Now, there is the argument regarding "potential for harm" in that knives can cause less harm than firearms. That's a great argument, however we already have as many guns as people, and confiscation is not going to happen. It's a non-starter. Additionally, violence as a trend has been declining for 30+ years, so quantitatively the issue is dropping as well. And then finally medicine is reaching the point where it's not "as true" as it used to be. So the argument's merits are just dwindling based on era.
The goal is always to get to the root of the problem. Always. Unfortunately, there are those who view "access to arms" as the root of the problem. They believe that removing access will solve the issue.
Unfortunately, it does solve a "symptom of the problem" but often transfers the issue elsewhere.
If we take a look at all the complaints of "(easy) access to firearms" which are generally speaking: Suicides & Violence, removing a specific tool doesn't fix those. Countries with "no" access still have those problems at similar rates. Removing guns doesn't fix Suicide. Removing guns doesn't fix violence.
Now, there is the argument regarding "potential for harm" in that knives can cause less harm than firearms. That's a great argument, however we already have as many guns as people, and confiscation is not going to happen. It's a non-starter. Additionally, violence as a trend has been declining for 30+ years, so quantitatively the issue is dropping as well. And then finally medicine is reaching the point where it's not "as true" as it used to be. So the argument's merits are just dwindling based on era.
(7)
(0)
7
7
0
An armed society is a polite society. A disarmed society is a subservient society. The government does not grant us our rights, they are unalienable. The notion that some would think they can be taken away by government demonstrates how far we have slipped already.
(7)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
COL Ted Mc. If you get caught with a gun in NYC you are going to prison for a long time. Exhibit A: Plexico Burress of the NY Giants. He was a superbowl here and I think he served a little less than two years in prison for gun possession. What fate might await a Cabbie in front of a NYC judge?
You are correct that the 2nd amendment only prohibits the federal government from placing restrictions on gun ownership. It did not prevent the state from doing so. We have all sorts of issues in the federal constitution being hoisted upon the states by activist judges. The most recent example was the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage which is not even a federal issue but they wrap it in under the equal protection clause and make sweeping rulings. Even gun ownership does not have that sweeping of an interpretation. It is illegal to own weapons in some states/areas which one would think would violate the equal protection clause if gay marriage can be covered by it.
There was not a federal militia at the time, as a matter of fact there was not even supposed to be a standing army except in times of war. The militias were strictly a state organization and they were not regulated like the reserves are today with forma drills and the like. You became a part of the militia voluntarily.
You are correct that the 2nd amendment only prohibits the federal government from placing restrictions on gun ownership. It did not prevent the state from doing so. We have all sorts of issues in the federal constitution being hoisted upon the states by activist judges. The most recent example was the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage which is not even a federal issue but they wrap it in under the equal protection clause and make sweeping rulings. Even gun ownership does not have that sweeping of an interpretation. It is illegal to own weapons in some states/areas which one would think would violate the equal protection clause if gay marriage can be covered by it.
There was not a federal militia at the time, as a matter of fact there was not even supposed to be a standing army except in times of war. The militias were strictly a state organization and they were not regulated like the reserves are today with forma drills and the like. You became a part of the militia voluntarily.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Jeff N. - Corporal; Might I suggest that you review the Militia Act of 1903. EVERY male in the United States of America between the ages of 17 and 45 who is not an active member of the US military IS a member of "The Militia" (even if they don't know it). There isn't anything "voluntary" about it at all.
This definition is a carry forward of The Militia Act of 1792 which said " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.".
You might also want to pay some attention to Article 1, section 8, clause 15 of the Constitution of the United States of America which says "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.".
In short, there may well NOT have been a "WELL REGULATED Militia" at the beginning of the country, but the Founding Fathers certainly had the original intention for there to be one and Congress has the constitutional and statutory power to actually ensure that "The Militia" is "well regulated" by imposing terms and standards of training and equipment (as well as imposing penalties for failing to meet those standards).
You will note that there isn't a word in any of those three references that indicates that "Congress" has to pay a dime towards either the equipping of "the Militia" or even towards the sustenance of the members of "the Militia" should it be called out "to execute the laws of the Union", or called out to "suppress insurrections" or called out to "repel invasions".
Theoretically, "Congress" could "call out" 100% of the male members of every Grade 12 class in the country on the same day and ship them all off to a single location for "training".
This definition is a carry forward of The Militia Act of 1792 which said " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.".
You might also want to pay some attention to Article 1, section 8, clause 15 of the Constitution of the United States of America which says "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.".
In short, there may well NOT have been a "WELL REGULATED Militia" at the beginning of the country, but the Founding Fathers certainly had the original intention for there to be one and Congress has the constitutional and statutory power to actually ensure that "The Militia" is "well regulated" by imposing terms and standards of training and equipment (as well as imposing penalties for failing to meet those standards).
You will note that there isn't a word in any of those three references that indicates that "Congress" has to pay a dime towards either the equipping of "the Militia" or even towards the sustenance of the members of "the Militia" should it be called out "to execute the laws of the Union", or called out to "suppress insurrections" or called out to "repel invasions".
Theoretically, "Congress" could "call out" 100% of the male members of every Grade 12 class in the country on the same day and ship them all off to a single location for "training".
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
I may not be as well versed in the Militia act of 1903 as you are but I understood that the Militia Act of 1908 was replaced/overridden by the National Defense Act of 1916, the National Defense Act of 1920, and the National Defense Act Amendments of 1933 and maybe others.
Theories are nice but I would like to see the 1903 act in action. You and I both know there is zero chance that would pass muster today. A federal judge (or many) would have that thing halted in it's tracks. Also. not sure how the following acts (referenced above) affect the 1903 act and I don't care to take the time to compare them.
Some commentary on Article I,. Section 8. There was not unanimity amongst the founders on the standing army question.
____________________________________________________________________
For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty. In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England. In the first case, Julius Caesar marched his provincial army into Rome, overthrowing the power of the Senate, destroying the republic, and laying the foundation of empire. In the second, Cromwell used the army to abolish Parliament and to rule as dictator. In addition, in the period leading up to the Revolution, the British Crown had forced the American colonists to quarter and otherwise support its troops, which the colonists saw as nothing more than an army of occupation. Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces. The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive.
Many of the men who met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, however, had the experience of serving with the Continental Line, the army that ultimately bested the British for our independence. Founders like George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were also acutely aware of the dangers external enemies posed to the new republic. The British and Spanish were not only on the frontiers of the new nation. In many cases they were within the frontiers, allying with the Indians and attempting to induce frontier settlements to split off from the country. The recent Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts had also impelled the Framers to consider the possibility of local rebellion.
The "raise and support Armies" clause was the Framers' solution to the dilemma. The Constitutional Convention accepted the need for a standing army but sought to maintain control by the appropriations power of Congress, which the Founders viewed as the branch of government closest to the people.
The compromise, however, did not satisfy the Anti-Federalists. They largely shared the perspective of James Burgh, who, in his Political Disquisitions (1774), called a "standing army in times of peace, one of the most hurtful, and most dangerous of abuses." The Anti-Federalist paper A Democratic Federalist called a standing army "that great support of tyrants." And Brutus, the most influential series of essays opposing ratification, argued that standing armies "are dangerous to the liberties of a people...not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpation of powers, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is a great hazard, that any army will subvert the forms of government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader." During the Virginia ratifying convention, George Mason exclaimed, "What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies!" The Anti-Federalists would have preferred that the defense of the nation remain entirely with the state militias.
The Federalists disagreed. For them, the power of a government to raise an army was a dictate of prudence. Thus, during the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, James Wilson argued that "the power of raising and keeping up an army, in time of peace, is essential to every government. No government can secure its citizens against dangers, internal and external, without possessing it, and sometimes carrying it into execution." In The Federalist No. 23, Hamilton argued, "These powers [of the federal government to provide for the common defense] ought to exist without limitation: because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent or variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent & variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them."
Theories are nice but I would like to see the 1903 act in action. You and I both know there is zero chance that would pass muster today. A federal judge (or many) would have that thing halted in it's tracks. Also. not sure how the following acts (referenced above) affect the 1903 act and I don't care to take the time to compare them.
Some commentary on Article I,. Section 8. There was not unanimity amongst the founders on the standing army question.
____________________________________________________________________
For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty. In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England. In the first case, Julius Caesar marched his provincial army into Rome, overthrowing the power of the Senate, destroying the republic, and laying the foundation of empire. In the second, Cromwell used the army to abolish Parliament and to rule as dictator. In addition, in the period leading up to the Revolution, the British Crown had forced the American colonists to quarter and otherwise support its troops, which the colonists saw as nothing more than an army of occupation. Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces. The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive.
Many of the men who met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, however, had the experience of serving with the Continental Line, the army that ultimately bested the British for our independence. Founders like George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were also acutely aware of the dangers external enemies posed to the new republic. The British and Spanish were not only on the frontiers of the new nation. In many cases they were within the frontiers, allying with the Indians and attempting to induce frontier settlements to split off from the country. The recent Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts had also impelled the Framers to consider the possibility of local rebellion.
The "raise and support Armies" clause was the Framers' solution to the dilemma. The Constitutional Convention accepted the need for a standing army but sought to maintain control by the appropriations power of Congress, which the Founders viewed as the branch of government closest to the people.
The compromise, however, did not satisfy the Anti-Federalists. They largely shared the perspective of James Burgh, who, in his Political Disquisitions (1774), called a "standing army in times of peace, one of the most hurtful, and most dangerous of abuses." The Anti-Federalist paper A Democratic Federalist called a standing army "that great support of tyrants." And Brutus, the most influential series of essays opposing ratification, argued that standing armies "are dangerous to the liberties of a people...not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpation of powers, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is a great hazard, that any army will subvert the forms of government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader." During the Virginia ratifying convention, George Mason exclaimed, "What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies!" The Anti-Federalists would have preferred that the defense of the nation remain entirely with the state militias.
The Federalists disagreed. For them, the power of a government to raise an army was a dictate of prudence. Thus, during the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, James Wilson argued that "the power of raising and keeping up an army, in time of peace, is essential to every government. No government can secure its citizens against dangers, internal and external, without possessing it, and sometimes carrying it into execution." In The Federalist No. 23, Hamilton argued, "These powers [of the federal government to provide for the common defense] ought to exist without limitation: because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent or variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent & variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them."
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Jeff N. - Corporal; The National Defence Act of 1916 dealt solely with the organization of the "regular army" and the "National Guard". The subsequent amendments did the same. None of them overrode the Militia Act of 1903 as far as the "militia" was concerned.
IF, and I do not support this view, the National Guard is NOW "the militia" then Americans lost their "Second Amendment Rights" over 100 years ago. IF the National Guard is NOT "the militia" (and I do support this view) then the definition of "militia" from 1903 still stands and Congress still has the constitutional power to require every male American between 17 and 45 to actually undergo the training as specified by Congress (and, since there isn't any requirement in the legislation that those people be paid, without paying them).
IF, and I do not support this view, the National Guard is NOW "the militia" then Americans lost their "Second Amendment Rights" over 100 years ago. IF the National Guard is NOT "the militia" (and I do support this view) then the definition of "militia" from 1903 still stands and Congress still has the constitutional power to require every male American between 17 and 45 to actually undergo the training as specified by Congress (and, since there isn't any requirement in the legislation that those people be paid, without paying them).
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
The left is not trying to disarm people. A few lefties maybe, but the whole of the left machine? No dude, that's just paranoia talking. I mean seriously, it's easier to buy a gun than a car and they are both quite lethal in the wrong hands. My biggest thing is that most of the super pro guns people who rant on and on about "leftist" anti gun policies have put in years of practice and are reasonable, safe, and responcible around firearms. Is it so unreasonable to try to make sure that everyone who purchases a firearm is held up to some measurable standard of safety prior to taking ownership?
You have to pass a test and be licensed before you can own and operate your own car, which then has to be registered . . . Not stopping anyone from doing it the correct way, now is it? Why not do at least that much for firearms.
You have to pass a test and be licensed before you can own and operate your own car, which then has to be registered . . . Not stopping anyone from doing it the correct way, now is it? Why not do at least that much for firearms.
(6)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I still dont see it happening for the reasons i said above, but youve made some good points
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SGT (Join to see) - I would highly advise not bringing up the issue of software registration and the ability or non-ability of the software being confiscated or disabled. I am not a lawyer, but in this subject area, I will have to highly disagree on whether that is possible or not. Secondly in that subject area not only could the owner/copyright holder do this but a malicious third party could disable or corrupt the software, also. Third, in the arena of computer software, the computer system can be effected whether it is or is not connected to a network or other communications medium. How do I know, I worked in that industry for 17.5 years.
Also SGT (Join to see) has a point about the confiscation of funds/money without due process by the federal government, but it is also done by local law enforcement agencies with encouragement by the federal government. You do not hear about it too often, but it is quite onerous and some of the individuals that have had their money confiscated/stolen do not even try to recover it after they find out that it will cost them more than what they lost. When this occurs the local and or federal agency treats it as found property and then is able to treat it as though it belongs to them without due process. The biggest part of this issue is the lack of due process and in most cases the inevitable loss of the money and or property.
What the bottom line is or the executive summary is - It can happen and has happened, even without registration; an individuals rights are violated without the individual having any or little recourse. And that is by both the local and federal law enforcement agencies and other federal authorities.
Also SGT (Join to see) has a point about the confiscation of funds/money without due process by the federal government, but it is also done by local law enforcement agencies with encouragement by the federal government. You do not hear about it too often, but it is quite onerous and some of the individuals that have had their money confiscated/stolen do not even try to recover it after they find out that it will cost them more than what they lost. When this occurs the local and or federal agency treats it as found property and then is able to treat it as though it belongs to them without due process. The biggest part of this issue is the lack of due process and in most cases the inevitable loss of the money and or property.
What the bottom line is or the executive summary is - It can happen and has happened, even without registration; an individuals rights are violated without the individual having any or little recourse. And that is by both the local and federal law enforcement agencies and other federal authorities.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG Robert Webster - I will add this about the software SSG. When You click "I agree to the terms and conditions......" it then becomes a legally binding agreement. I can guarantee, 99% of people do not read the EULA. A lot of the EULAs out there from different software companies (Facebook and Microsoft included) are pretty scary. So read them. But, like I said, this is a whole new beast in and of itself.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SGT (Join to see) - Your preaching to the choir on the subject of software and EULAs. Like I said before, I know from personal experience of working in that industry.
Don't forget about the shrink-wrap license and it's variants.
And did you read my entire statement? Did you miss the part where I worked in the software industry for 17.5 years?
Don't forget about the shrink-wrap license and it's variants.
And did you read my entire statement? Did you miss the part where I worked in the software industry for 17.5 years?
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
No one is trying to take your guns. There IS a group however that is very happy for you to continue thinking that though... I wonder who it could be...
http://www.whitsundaytimes.com.au/news/us-gun-sales-soar-after-mass-shooting-oregon/2796059/
http://www.whitsundaytimes.com.au/news/us-gun-sales-soar-after-mass-shooting-oregon/2796059/
US gun sales soar after mass shooting in Oregon
US gun sales have soared following the mass-shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, which killed 10 people
(5)
(0)
SGT William Howell
SFC Michael Hasbun Freddy is not real, but people like you are real. Your constant aggressive grinding on this subject proves my point. It is very plain that you are passionate about gun control to the point that I wish you would take a stand against the 1st Amendment, like you do about 2nd, and not use your right for free speech.
(0)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
Actually, I'm pro firearms. I've been a Small Arms Master Marksman for over a decade, love shooting and plan to involve my son in the sport. The thing that seems to make me a weirdo is that I also believe that with firearms come responsibility. I believe that the insane, criminals and children shouldn't be able to freely obtain firearms. I believe personnel should be trained and certified to own them. I believe they shouldn't be as available as water bottles, not because I think they are "evil", but because when misused, the potential for catastrophe is high, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.
If advocating for personal responsibility and training/certification makes me an evil commie/socialist/ whatever else'ist, than so be it.
If advocating for personal responsibility and training/certification makes me an evil commie/socialist/ whatever else'ist, than so be it.
(0)
(0)
SGT William Howell
See you are looking at this as a sport. You are not constitutionally given the right to shoot paper targets or hunt. This is about the right that was given to use to protect our country from becoming a kingdom. You know something that is not a right, driving. Drunk drivers kill double the amount of children as guns do. It is preventable, It is illegal, and it is not a constitutional right. The amount of energy you spend on gun control could be used to double the amount of children saved just by demanding that we do more about drunk drivers. Why such a emphasis in guns?
(0)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
You're right, the constitution gives us the right to bear arms because it's so important that we be quickly able to establish a militia if need be (It's the very first sentence of the amendment, it's hard to argue that it isn't the point, though I'm sure many will try, because it comes with responsibilities, instead of just privileges). Have you seen any citizens other than the Guard attending their militia drills lately? Where is this well regulated militia everyone is training in? That's the whole point, straight from the words of the amendment...
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Here are his proposals after Newtown; no confiscation, but there are enhanced background checks for mental health.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/summary-president-obama-gun-proposals.aspx
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/summary-president-obama-gun-proposals.aspx
(5)
(0)
CPT Ahmed Faried
quite a lot different from the tinfoil conspiracies huh Chief. Thanks for introducing facts and not hyperbole.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
This is what he said sir. Australia did have a national gun confiscation.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/fox-news-anchor-claims-australians-have-no-freedom/6831618
And also this statement from the whitehouse website:
"We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don't work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence." - President Obama - site: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/01/statement-president-shootings-umpqua-community-college-roseburg-oregon
Just take a look at Chicago sir. Just this past weekend. Google will bring up the news reports. They have some of the STRICTEST gun control laws in the nation.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/fox-news-anchor-claims-australians-have-no-freedom/6831618
And also this statement from the whitehouse website:
"We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don't work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence." - President Obama - site: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/01/statement-president-shootings-umpqua-community-college-roseburg-oregon
Just take a look at Chicago sir. Just this past weekend. Google will bring up the news reports. They have some of the STRICTEST gun control laws in the nation.
Obama backs Australia's gun laws while condemning latest mass shootings in US
In a podcast interview with Marc Maron, Obama talks Charleston and says there is ‘no other advanced nation on Earth’ that tolerates such frequent mass shootings
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Could you explain how the POTUS is taking away weapons from law abiding citizens (not media speculation, but actual laws or proposed laws), and how he wants a nationalized police force? I could be very well wrong, but he's proposed gun legislation to make it harder to attain weapons, but nothing to take them away. The VA letter thing goes back to a law that was passed when he was still teaching college. And the nationalized police force? I'm all for an argument, but I don't see where he actually HAS done anything to actively take away anything. And before anyone say's I'm an Obama fanboy, I'm not per se. But I clearly recognize that lamestream media has a way of making green skittles seem like a mistake Obama made.
(3)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC(P) (Join to see) - Spec; I have a simpler idea. Require gun manufacturers/importers to insure against damage caused by the future use of their products and then leave it to them to do whatever "regulation" private industry feels is appropriate. [If you don't like the "S&W Regulations" you can always follow the "Colt Regulations".]
Considering that the firearms manufacturers/importers are knowledgeable business people, it wouldn't take them long to figure out that it would cost each of them less if there was a single policy covering all of them (buying power like that can really lower costs - just ask Wal*Mart).
There wouldn't be any prosecutions for anything other than "failure to insure" because all of the damage claims would be settled by the insurance company.
AND, the real beauty of the concept is that no one would ever have to pay for the insurance because the manufacturers would be paying for it - right?
Considering that the firearms manufacturers/importers are knowledgeable business people, it wouldn't take them long to figure out that it would cost each of them less if there was a single policy covering all of them (buying power like that can really lower costs - just ask Wal*Mart).
There wouldn't be any prosecutions for anything other than "failure to insure" because all of the damage claims would be settled by the insurance company.
AND, the real beauty of the concept is that no one would ever have to pay for the insurance because the manufacturers would be paying for it - right?
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
COL Ted Mc - I hope that you are being sarcastic in your statement to SPC(P) (Join to see) about the gun insurance. Otherwise, I will have to question how you view economics. Or is your statement part of a strategic plan and or policy? ;-)
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG Robert Webster - Staff; The key is in the last paragraph and the " - right? " bit.
It's just like getting a "free" highway because "the government" pays for it (and built the cost into your overall tax load) or not paying import tariffs because the company paid them when they imported the goods (and built that cost into the price).
All too many people think that they aren't paying for things simply because they don't get a specific, itemized, bill for them. Those people forget that (unless it simply prints it) the government doesn't have a dime of its own and that all of its money comes from the people of the country it governs - if not through direct taxation then through indirect taxation where the taxes that someone else pays are tacked on as a "cost" when calculation the sales price.
It's just like getting a "free" highway because "the government" pays for it (and built the cost into your overall tax load) or not paying import tariffs because the company paid them when they imported the goods (and built that cost into the price).
All too many people think that they aren't paying for things simply because they don't get a specific, itemized, bill for them. Those people forget that (unless it simply prints it) the government doesn't have a dime of its own and that all of its money comes from the people of the country it governs - if not through direct taxation then through indirect taxation where the taxes that someone else pays are tacked on as a "cost" when calculation the sales price.
(2)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SPC(P) (Join to see) - I see your concerns, but this isn't the first time our government has been caught with weapons going to questionable sources, so I don't think making it a democratic or republican thing would help. LTC Ollie North can vouch for the fact that both sides of the coin are screwed up, and that sword he fell on for Iran-Contra went deep. But again, I'm not trying to change your mind on anything, but that UN deal has as much of a chance at actually being done here in the US as I do with marrying Ms. America. On the Supreme Court making decisions without contest; that's why they're there. They make decisions that impact the land and if anyone wanted to challenge their decision, congress can "easily" make an amendment to override them. The POTUS should act if it's in what he believes is the best interests of the nation. With that if congress refuses to act, is he supposed to sit back and chill until they're willing to make a decision? Congress only acts when it suits them. They cry over the POTUS taking vacations, yet they're hardly doing anything themselves. Congress also has shut down the government in 2013, and one of the architects of that is running for president now. Note during that time government workers weren't being paid...congress was. He also threatened another shutdown this year while on the campaign trail. No one's perfect in either party, and they're ALL bought by the highest bidder, but I KNOW as American's NONE of them would allow this to actually happen. Imagine the ramifications if it did. Boehner won't be the only legislator crying in public.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
It is dependency that a government wanted. To disarm the public, mean public will need to relay on police force for many incidents, that will justified a lot of tax increase too, and politician can easily campaign that they increase police force funding, just like education. Every time there is a discussion of education, increase funding. Imagine the same situation with police forces.
on the other more crazy side, to disarm public also take away the threat to the political elitist from the public, and therefore their power can meet less resistance, a "king" class of elitist can surface.
and many more explanation too, pick anyone of it ... it will feel like they are all the right answer.
on the other more crazy side, to disarm public also take away the threat to the political elitist from the public, and therefore their power can meet less resistance, a "king" class of elitist can surface.
and many more explanation too, pick anyone of it ... it will feel like they are all the right answer.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
COL Ted Mc
PV2 Scott Goodpasture - Private; Nice graphic. Historical crap.
Adolf Hitler never said that. In fact, the 1938 "German Weapons Act" of 1938 (when Hitler was in power) actually loosened gun ownership rules for NON-JEWISH Germans.
Please stop at the ticket office on your way out and pick up your official "Godwin's Law" souvenir wall poster.
TSgt Jaime Jones - Sergeant; The "more stringent" gun control laws were passed by the Wiemar government BEFORE Hitler took power.
Adolf Hitler never said that. In fact, the 1938 "German Weapons Act" of 1938 (when Hitler was in power) actually loosened gun ownership rules for NON-JEWISH Germans.
Please stop at the ticket office on your way out and pick up your official "Godwin's Law" souvenir wall poster.
TSgt Jaime Jones - Sergeant; The "more stringent" gun control laws were passed by the Wiemar government BEFORE Hitler took power.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PV2 Scott Goodpasture - Private; Could you please explain how you can get "yeah well he would have" out of "He did the exact opposite."?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Rep. Jan Schakowsky: Assault Weapons ban 'Just the Beginning'
A Democrat Illinois congresswoman openly admits that going after Assault Weapons is only the beginning. Banning handguns is also on the agenda.
For those saying that it is nothing more than paranoia, here are a small sample of the things that are driving the "hysteria".
I could list hundreds of thousands, but i'll keep it to the point. The first is the fairly recent announcement that the Department of Justice is launching the Strong Cities Network, which is a United Nations "world police" force that will be working within the United States to "combat domestic and International terrorism." Don't believe it? I don't blame you, I didn't either...
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/launch-strong-cities-network-strengthen-community-resilience-against-violent-extremism
http://strongcitiesnetwork.org/
White house press secretary Joshua Earnest, “The president has frequently pushed his team to consider a range of executive actions that could more effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who shouldn’t have access to them. That’s something that is ongoing here.”
President Obama on Australia style gun confiscation, "Australia just said, well that's it, we're not doing that again, and basically imposed very severe and tough gun laws and they haven't had a mass shooting since."
Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky: https://youtu.be/BVz2lHODQvs
NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, "Confiscation could be an option... mandatory sale to the state could be an option"
California Senator Dianne Feinstein (among the billion other stupid quotes, after leading the assualt weapons ban in 1995) “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!” https://youtu.be/1_LaBJvI0BI
This isn't even getting into the Clinton's, The Brady Foundation, and all the other nutcases who buy into the BS that these gun laws work. Now, explain to me what purpose does a registration system serve? Is my gun being registered in my name going to prevent me from shooting someone? Is it going to prevent my wife from shooting someone, or someone who breaks into my house and steals it? Ok, so what about background checks right? Who is going to ensure that I don't transfer weapons to someone without bringing it to the store for them to get a background check? Why would I not make the deal under the table to save me and the buyer the fee for running the check? BTW, in order for a background check to stop someone from owning a gun, they have to have a criminal history. (And it's already required except for private sale) Most of the mass shootings were from people who had psychological history, not criminal history. Want to do medical screenings? Who gets to decide what is classified as a psychological condition warranting you to lose your guns? PTSD? ADD? Depression? 1:4 American's have a diagnosable mental disorder, do they all lose their rights or just some of them?
Well who needs an assault weapon, all they are for is mass shootings and war, right? Wrong, not only are they used for sporting, hunting in many conditions, etc. they are one of the least used weapons in murders. Not only that, but all of the characteristics of the weapons that make it an "assault weapon" can be easily removed without changing the functioning of the weapon at all. For example: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/04/ny_safe_act_see_what_makes_an_assault_weapon_illegal.html This weapons manufacture was able to create an AR-15 fully "Assault Weapon Ban Compliant" without changing the weapons functioning at all. Oh, by the way, they may be a popular firearm, but Charles Whitman killed his mother, his wife and 14 others, while wounding 32 others with a bolt-action deer rifle.
So, rather than make the debate over, what type of "gun control" we can enforce, how about looking for solutions to the society of psychopaths that we are creating. Why not figure out why 20 years ago, if a kid was being bullied, it lead to a fistfight after school and detention, and now it leads to a school shooting. Why not figure out why, when in most cases, the warning signs are there long before the attack, why nothing is done to prevent it. Why not focus on the real issue, which is a society that has no value of human life, and find ways to change that. Why not find out why 1/3 of homeless people are schizophrenic because our system for taking care of the mental unstable is completely broken... rant over...
I could list hundreds of thousands, but i'll keep it to the point. The first is the fairly recent announcement that the Department of Justice is launching the Strong Cities Network, which is a United Nations "world police" force that will be working within the United States to "combat domestic and International terrorism." Don't believe it? I don't blame you, I didn't either...
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/launch-strong-cities-network-strengthen-community-resilience-against-violent-extremism
http://strongcitiesnetwork.org/
White house press secretary Joshua Earnest, “The president has frequently pushed his team to consider a range of executive actions that could more effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who shouldn’t have access to them. That’s something that is ongoing here.”
President Obama on Australia style gun confiscation, "Australia just said, well that's it, we're not doing that again, and basically imposed very severe and tough gun laws and they haven't had a mass shooting since."
Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky: https://youtu.be/BVz2lHODQvs
NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, "Confiscation could be an option... mandatory sale to the state could be an option"
California Senator Dianne Feinstein (among the billion other stupid quotes, after leading the assualt weapons ban in 1995) “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!” https://youtu.be/1_LaBJvI0BI
This isn't even getting into the Clinton's, The Brady Foundation, and all the other nutcases who buy into the BS that these gun laws work. Now, explain to me what purpose does a registration system serve? Is my gun being registered in my name going to prevent me from shooting someone? Is it going to prevent my wife from shooting someone, or someone who breaks into my house and steals it? Ok, so what about background checks right? Who is going to ensure that I don't transfer weapons to someone without bringing it to the store for them to get a background check? Why would I not make the deal under the table to save me and the buyer the fee for running the check? BTW, in order for a background check to stop someone from owning a gun, they have to have a criminal history. (And it's already required except for private sale) Most of the mass shootings were from people who had psychological history, not criminal history. Want to do medical screenings? Who gets to decide what is classified as a psychological condition warranting you to lose your guns? PTSD? ADD? Depression? 1:4 American's have a diagnosable mental disorder, do they all lose their rights or just some of them?
Well who needs an assault weapon, all they are for is mass shootings and war, right? Wrong, not only are they used for sporting, hunting in many conditions, etc. they are one of the least used weapons in murders. Not only that, but all of the characteristics of the weapons that make it an "assault weapon" can be easily removed without changing the functioning of the weapon at all. For example: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/04/ny_safe_act_see_what_makes_an_assault_weapon_illegal.html This weapons manufacture was able to create an AR-15 fully "Assault Weapon Ban Compliant" without changing the weapons functioning at all. Oh, by the way, they may be a popular firearm, but Charles Whitman killed his mother, his wife and 14 others, while wounding 32 others with a bolt-action deer rifle.
So, rather than make the debate over, what type of "gun control" we can enforce, how about looking for solutions to the society of psychopaths that we are creating. Why not figure out why 20 years ago, if a kid was being bullied, it lead to a fistfight after school and detention, and now it leads to a school shooting. Why not figure out why, when in most cases, the warning signs are there long before the attack, why nothing is done to prevent it. Why not focus on the real issue, which is a society that has no value of human life, and find ways to change that. Why not find out why 1/3 of homeless people are schizophrenic because our system for taking care of the mental unstable is completely broken... rant over...
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google