Democrats & Liberals Archives

Comments
Comment #324501

SD

What is your point? Issa afraid? What are you afraid of? I don’t think Issa is afraid of anything.

Factually there should not be a single federal gun law, period. The Constitution covers that very simply in Amendment 2. All federal laws are un-Constitutional according to the Second Amendment.

And we are not talking about state laws only federal laws.

Posted by: tom humes at June 15, 2011 6:58 PM
Comment #324502

Stephen, What has our gun laws got to do with Mexican drug cartels getting their hands on guns? Try reading the Fox News report on the hearings they tell a whole different story on how agents were told to stand down when guns were flowing through Arizona. Besides LAWS only apply to people who obey the laws, the lawless will always find a way around the law. If a criminal wants a gun he WILL find a way to get one.

Posted by: KAP at June 15, 2011 6:59 PM
Comment #324508

tom humes-
by your logic, it should be permissable to ask somebody to kill your wife. Or to plan a robbery. To hold a rock concert at three in the morning in the middle of the street, wearing nothing.

I think there can be reasonable constraints on whether guns can be sold to those who have a criminal record or who are mentally ill, on the time, place and manner of the sale of guns, without abridging people’s right to bear arms.

If a law-abiding citizen can arm themselves within a reasonable period of time, I think that’s enough gun control.

But your side takes a position that just ignores the reality of the situation. Just as there are reasons not to let people spread vicious lies about each other, there are reasons not to let the insane or the criminal get guns. Just as their are reasons not to let people use their speech to incite insurrection against their own country, so too are their reasons not to let people arm themselves without limit or reasonable constraint.

There’s no point to applying the principle to the point of destruction of its good sense. Let the people arm themselves. But let them arm themselves in a way that preserves, rather than destroys a peaceful, law-abiding society.

KAP-
The guy basically said that with gun laws so weak, they couldn’t threaten the people running the guns with anything strong enough to get them to turn on them.

As for who the laws apply to? Well, like I mention, it applies to anybody who gets caught. If your laws are weak, the disincentive for the behavior is low. If a guy caught running guns can get probation or some other weak punishment, do you think they’re going to stop?

When did a criminals failure to follow the law become the reason we rolled back those laws? That doesn’t make any sense. Laws exist, in criminal cases, to punish the offenders who break them. Otherwise, there is no cause to bring the law into it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 15, 2011 7:51 PM
Comment #324510

Stephen, Did you read the Fox News report? Like I said it states a whole different report then the one you linked.
Stephen the point I am making is that you can strengthen all the laws you want but if you don’t enforce the ones already on the books why make new ones. Criminals are going to get the tools of their trade no matter how tough you make the laws. If I want to buy a gun without all the wait and paperwork I’m sure I can get one. You say it applies to anyone who gets caught. The big word here is IF THEY GET CAUGHT then it applies to them. If I’m going to rob a bank or kill someone and want to use a gun I would have to be a total retard to go to my local gun shop and buy one.

Posted by: KAP at June 15, 2011 8:18 PM
Comment #324511

“tom humes-
by your logic, it should be permissable to ask somebody to kill your wife. Or to plan a robbery. To hold a rock concert at three in the morning in the middle of the street, wearing nothing.”

SD, as usual, your comments are juvenile and illogical. I read no statement from TH making it permissible to kill your wife or anyone else. What is your purpose for writing on WB? You post a link and make an outrageous title, “What’s Rep. Issa Afraid Of?” Are we getting that desperate to find something to write about?

“I think there can be reasonable constraints on whether guns can be sold to those who have a criminal record or who are mentally ill, on the time, place and manner of the sale of guns, without abridging people’s right to bear arms.”

No, you are a liberal socialist, and you believe like all liberal socialist; that Americans do not have an individual right to own a gun. I promise you would defend Schumer’s and Clinton’s stand on owning firearms. Perhaps you could tell us SD, what is your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?

“If a law-abiding citizen can arm themselves within a reasonable period of time, I think that’s enough gun control.”

Why; if one goes to buy a firearm, an immediate inquiry can be made to the FBI and the person can walk out with his/her gun. Why would adding more days help in the FBI clearance? Unless you would rather see someone killed for not being able to protect him/herself.

The ones who should be punished are the ones who gave birth to this “Operation Fast and Furious” scheme.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 15, 2011 8:38 PM
Comment #324516

SD

You obviously did not watch the hearing. You cherry picked an incident that happened at the hearing.

What the states say about gun ownership is their business. The federal government can make no law concerning the ownership of guns. That is such a simple thing. If you do not understand that, then you do not understand one iota of principle of the Constitution.

This hearing today had to do with Operation Fast and Furious. It had to do with why high level of DOJ, Federal Prosecutors, and high level personnel in the ATF let weapons go freely into Mexico and other parts of these United States. When agents testified that they were not allowed to interdict the straw buyers, they protested to their supervisors and were told it was not any of their business why they could not interdict the straw buyers. In some cases agents were disciplined for their protest.

Stephen, your column here today is a disservice to the Terry family, those ATF agents who stepped forward, and to both political parties.

Your credibility was already in the toilet. I just flushed the toilet.

Posted by: tom humes at June 15, 2011 10:21 PM
Comment #324521

“A well regulated militia”…..

It’s ok to regulate the militia, but NOT the firearms? I don’t think so!!!!!!

I also agree that strict gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. It’s a tough question needing some balanced answers. The idea that the Federal Government should have no power to regulate firearms is unbalanced.

Posted by: steve miller at June 16, 2011 6:29 AM
Comment #324522

steve miller

Reread the 2nd amendment and study it carefully. There is no question or gray area about the wording.

Posted by: tom humes at June 16, 2011 7:19 AM
Comment #324523

“Reread the 2nd amendment and study it carefully. There is no question or gray area about the wording.”

Tom,

I have read the second amendment. Interestingly, we don’t have to guess as to the purpose of the amendment since it is explicit as Steve pointed out: “A well regulated militia being necessary…” The right to keep and bear arms is in service to the need for a well regulated militia. It would seem reasonable that in regulating such a militia that the nature of the firearms kept by the generally citizenry for use in a militia would be subject to regulation also. In addition, there is little doubt that the right of the mentally disturbed and criminals to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation. The right to bear arms is not absolute even under the most conservative reading of the amendment.


Posted by: Rich at June 16, 2011 8:55 AM
Comment #324524

“Tom,
I have read the second amendment. Interestingly, we don’t have to guess as to the purpose of the amendment since it is explicit as Steve pointed out: “A well regulated militia being necessary…” The right to keep and bear arms is in service to the need for a well regulated militia. It would seem reasonable that in regulating such a militia that the nature of the firearms kept by the generally citizenry for use in a militia would be subject to regulation also. In addition, there is little doubt that the right of the mentally disturbed and criminals to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation. The right to bear arms is not absolute even under the most conservative reading of the amendment.”

Posted by: Rich at June 16, 2011 08:55 AM

Your last statement is false; the USSC upheld the right to keep and bare arms in 2010:

“Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment Rights
Monday, June 28, 2010

The United States Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling today that the Second Amendment does, in fact, mean what it says — even in Chicago — and guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The case at hand was McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the plaintiff sought to overturn Chicago’s blanket ban on handguns.

The Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Chicago ban clearly infringed on that right.

That didn’t stop the Chicago Tribune from spinning in its headline, “Supreme Court extends gun rights.” The Tribune lamented that the Court’s decision had “extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection.” Such language, of course, suggests that the Court invented the right out of thin air — sort of like abortion on demand. Unlike abortion, however, the right to keep and bear arms is actually written down in the Constitution, in plain view for all to see.

Hans von Spakovsky1 of the Heritage Foundation summed up the case:

In 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court for the first time held that the right to bear arms was an individual right. But that decision, which struck down a virtual ban on handguns and a requirement that rifles and shotguns had to be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” in the District of Columbia, applied only to the federal government because the District is a federal enclave. What had never been decided before today’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago was whether the protection of the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to apply to state and local governments”

http://patriotpost.us/perspective/2010/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-second-amendment-rights/print/

“It means trained or kept in proper working order. So not only does the 2nd amendment recognise the pre-existing, individual right to bear arms, it also recognises the right to practice training exercises with them. Basically any and all gun laws are inherently unconstitutional and illegal in the united states of america.”

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charter…

And again we read:

“The “right of the people to keep and bear arms” is part of the Bill of Rights. It stands alongside the First Amendment’s rights of freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly. Opponents of strict or any regulation of private possession of firearms regard the Second Amendment as no less important than the First, indeed as a defense against a tyrannical government that would deprive the people of the basic rights for which a revolution was fought and an independent nation founded. Regardless of the degree of gun control any of us may prefer, it is essential that the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment be clearly understood, and its mandate carried out.”

What part of the 1st Amendment would you regulate? What part of freedom of religion or freedom of speech would you surrender? And yet you seek to put restrictions on the 2nd amendment.

Posted by: Mike at June 16, 2011 9:50 AM
Comment #324528

Mike

Is it not amazing how some people can get such a screwy meaning from such simple wording and furthermore after the Supreme Court as affirmed the meaning of those words.

SD

I got up in the middle of the night to see the remainder of the hearing. There was no difference between both parties in dealing with the witnesses in this hearing. Even the lying attorney from DOJ who was caught red-handed being dishonest and refused to admit it. There were hours of testimony and you took a two minute exchange and tried to make something of it. Rep. Maloney of New York is a strong anti-gun advocate. Chairman Issa just wanted to warn her that the investigation was not toward legislation but to get facts and try to bring prosecution to those who contributed to the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. At no time was Chairman Issa trying to keep the ATF agents from answering questions and that was mutual between the majority and minority parties. I will go on to give praise to Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking member for the minority party. He did an outstanding job. Oh, that congress could conduct itself as well as they did in this hearing.

I will repeat. You have done a disservice to all those involved as witnesses as well as those representatives who serve on the committee.

Things must be getting tough down there in Houston in your neighborhood.

Posted by: tom humes at June 16, 2011 10:51 AM
Comment #324532

Conservativethinker-

SD, as usual, your comments are juvenile and illogical. I read no statement from TH making it permissible to kill your wife or anyone else. What is your purpose for writing on WB? You post a link and make an outrageous title, “What’s Rep. Issa Afraid Of?” Are we getting that desperate to find something to write about?

Juvenile and illogical. Hmm. Well, let’s start there.

Any supporting evidence?

Nope. First, it’s not juvenile, it’s actually rather clever. I’m talking about exceptions to the protections of the first Amendment. If the First Amendment, which says Congress can write no law abridging the freedom of speech, allows Congress and the state and local authorities to punish and sanction certain kinds of speech, to regulate time place and manner, then similar such regulations are possible for the Second Amendment, and for much the same reasons: Public safety, preserving the peace, “the security of a free State”, and so on.

Second, illogical? No. Abridged is no weaker a word than infringed, yet exceptions are made to Free Speech. If exceptions can be made to the rights of free speech, why not the right to bear arms?

That’s my logic, and instead of responding to it, you carry out an ad hominem argument.

No, you are a liberal socialist, and you believe like all liberal socialist; that Americans do not have an individual right to own a gun. I promise you would defend Schumer’s and Clinton’s stand on owning firearms. Perhaps you could tell us SD, what is your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?

I think I’ve told you a million times that I am a liberal capitalist, but you don’t listen. You’re not in the business of listening, you’re in the business of finding an excuse to employ your one-size-fits-all rhetoric.

As an example, you’re asking me what my stance is, even though I just gave it to you! I said, if a law abiding citizen can arm themselves with a reasonable period of time, I think that’s enough gun control.

My philosophy is that if the person has the ability to get a gun that has reasonable lethal capacity (not in favor of assault weapons being generally available) in short order (a couple weeks, or shorter if practicable), that both satisfies the amendment, and satisfies public safety.

I don’t want to take away everybody’s guns. That’s an inane accusation. I want laws in place that make it easier to make the cases on those gun-runners, to put them behind bars. I want the gun show loophole closed up. When al-Qaeda starts advising its agents to lurk in gun shows to get their weapons, you know you have a security hole on your hands.

tom humes-
My error with Breitbart was being so sure that he was an unreliable source, that I refused to entertain that even he could be right.

Your response to my error is to declare me an unreliable source, to be so sure about that, that you refuse to even entertain the idea that I could be right.

I made a mistake. I did not consider or let myself consider the possibility that he was right, despite how loathsome and unreliable I believed he was. But his loathsomeness to me, his unreliability in my eyes was not what dictated whether he was right.

Nor, on the other hand, were the firm beliefs of anybody who thought the other way. They could have been wrong, just the same.

What will make things true is whether the facts are true. Everything else is just a ghost in the neurological machine inside somebody’s head. Everything else can just be a person’s deluded belief, if the facts don’t match up.

If you really were concerned about credible information, why not search for a source that might tell you something about whether the concern I raised, about gun laws being too soft to encourage criminals to turn on their leaders is a valid one? See, all you’ve got is all I really had at the end of the day on Weiner’s guilt or innocence: a possibility I indulged because of what I believed. You’re no better, no more credible than I am, by that standard, that double standard you employ.

I did not comment on the ATF fiasco, which looks like a fiasco to me, too. I won’t defend them on what they obviously got wrong. But being wrong about one thing doesn’t make everything somebody says wrong itself. I learned that lesson the hard way recently. Are you looking to learn it that way, as well?

Also, from a political point of view, I would say it was a dumb move. It’s like the strenuous objection in A Few Good Men. All it did was draw attention to what Darrell Issa really didn’t want to talk about: the overall gun-running problem.

That’s why he felt he had to step in: he couldn’t handle the debate going in a direction that didn’t favor his tidy little embarrassment of the Obama Administration.

By the way, if I’m not mistaken, this was the guy who came into power promising to uncover a new scandal every week. Too bad he hasn’t kept up the pace. Looking for the opportunity to smear somebody, and actually finding one are two different things.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2011 12:29 PM
Comment #324533


Stephen, I basically agree with Kap. There has and always will be people willing to break the law, especially for profit.

The ATF may have had good intentions, but good intentions gone awry will always be subject to criticism.

I think it is rather ironic that the government wants more authority to crack down on a situation that was created by our government’s own unlawful acts.

A government that is willing to violate the laws of our country and our Constitution, primarily on behalf of wealthy interests, lacks credibility when demanding that it’s citizens obey the laws.

Posted by: jlw at June 16, 2011 12:37 PM
Comment #324534

jlw-
I’m always wary of tit for tat arguments of this kind, because they fail to ask the questions that need to be asked independently of how others answer.

Politics has a way of pushing feelings and sentiments ahead of practicalities. In this case, it’s a not unheard of practice in stings to knowingly let certain goods go unseized so those carrying them can carry this incriminating evidence to the people in charge of the operation, or at least those higher up in the organization.

And it went horribly, stupidly wrong here. But other undercover operations might depend on a similar tactic for success, executed in a better way.

On the subject of laws, I don’t think the first question we should ask when discussing things like gun laws is whether criminals are going to break them. A law that doesn’t ever get broken was an unnecessary law to begin with. The whole point of such a law is to provide for an offense to punish people for, and an sentence to punish people with.

We got Al Capone on tax evasion. It wasn’t sexy, but it had teeth, and it got him put away, pretty much for good. Same principle applies here. Yes, the gun runners would run guns anyways. But it’s going to be a greater risk with greater fallout when they get caught, which means some aren’t going to risk it.

Besides, the people who use this argument often also argue that the laws are unconstitutional to begin with. Saying this won’t keep the criminals from doing more crime is just a way of defusing an objection to such absolutism. The truth is, we determine the shape of the landscape concerning what criminals have to adapt to. People still rob banks and convenience stores, and nobody expects the law to stop them. But they do expect that the people who do it stand a good chance of being caught and punished for it. If you just legalized it, there’d be no disincentive at all.

As for the situation you speak of, answer one question: is the situation just the ATF letting weapons that killed border agents get through, or the gun-running in general. Perhaps we’d see less fiascos if we could turn people in order to go after the big criminals without having to follow a shipment to them. Then we could bust the weapons short of the kingpin, and use the small-timers with bigger sentences hanging over there heads to hit at the leaders.

As for the last part? Be that as it may, that can’t be the attitude we take, because that way lies anarchy. It’s oppositional thinking. There are certain things government needs to achieve for the public good, and encouraging a broad culture of the defiance of the laws doesn’t encourage that achievement, it just encourages more mediocrity.

I advocate the average person being better observant, more honest, in regards to the law, at the same time I demand better of the rich and powerful. I want a society and a government that encourages both. Otherwise, one side uses the other side’s failures and shortfalls to justify the other. The culture in general must change, and responsibility, not excuses for irresponsibility must be the order of the day.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2011 1:13 PM
Comment #324535

Stephen, Your post or link is an attack on Issa for stopping questions on legislation by Rep. Maloney which had NO BEARING on the investigation at hand. It in fact is an investigation on why Mexican drug cartels were able to get guns through the southern border while ATF agents looked the other way. Making tougher laws is not the answer, enforceing the ones we already have is, such as gun laws the our Government agents clearly violated and immigration laws that are not being enforced clearly another violation that both parties are guilty of.

Posted by: KAP at June 16, 2011 1:48 PM
Comment #324537


Stephen, what you say does not dispute the fact that this lawlessness was created and is allowed to continue by our government.

As far as I am concerned, those who are selling guns to drug cartels are no more in violation of the law that our government is.

The government could completely shut down that border tomorrow, but it doesn’t because of greedy self-interests. The government wants to protect it’s own unlawful acts by pursuing citizens violating the law and denouncing states that try to force adherence to the law.

Your arguments are only sound as long as the government itself is a instrument of law and not a violator of law.

Posted by: jlw at June 16, 2011 2:13 PM
Comment #324538

SD

It sounds as if you think ATF was doing the right thing letting the guns go to Mexico as well as other points in the US. Testimony was given by the three agents present at the hearing, that they had to stop pursuit and allow the gun-runners to go free and not knowing where the guns ended up until the final crime was committed using that weapon. Those were direct orders. And when those agents inquired of their next in command they were threatened and told to just obey orders. Those same agents said that never ever have they let a gun walk. Meaning losing contact with the weapon. The eventual catastrophe was a BP agent of the highest caliber was killed. And when I lauded Rep. Cummings for the excellent job done, you blew it off. See, I have the integrity to acknowledge someone of a different political outlook than mine, that does the right thing, to commend him for it.

On this issue you are in a hole and should quit digging.

Posted by: tom humes at June 16, 2011 2:21 PM
Comment #324540

jlw-
This is philosophy alone, not practical. There must be some sort of government, or else law has no meaning. Rule of law cannot survive the lack of law. Bad law must be undone with good law, not the destruction of respect for the law.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2011 2:45 PM
Comment #324541

tom humes-
“It sounds as if…”

Good grief, what did I explicitly state? I said:

I did not comment on the ATF fiasco, which looks like a fiasco to me, too. I won’t defend them on what they obviously got wrong.

What did they obviously get wrong? Hmm. I think our readers are smart enough to realize that I’m not patting the ATF on the head for letting the Cartel have weapons.

See, I have the integrity to acknowledge someone of a different political outlook than mine, that does the right thing, to commend him for it.

Or the arrogance to simply insist on cariacturing your opponent’s point of view, irrespective of anything he says.

So, let me give you even more to consider or misrepresent as you see fit.

It strikes me that there is an inconsistency here. For the sake of making the ATF look even worse than their failure here makes them seem, your side has been pounding the war drums on how awful it is that the Mexican Cartels got these weapons.

Well, then. Why not discuss whether the laws were strong enough to really stop these shipments in the first place? If the ATF erred greivously in acting in such a way that the Cartel got its weapons, isn’t Congress equally guilty, or more so, for not legislating the laws and the authority necessary to interdict such weapons, and successfully prosecute those running the guns?

If the current laws make current ATF efforts ineffectual, then what’s the point of beating them up if you’re not willing to resolve the problem yourselves? You can’t be two-faced on this subject and maintain your own credibility.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2011 2:55 PM
Comment #324542

Stephen, What is BAD LAW? Government violated the law they were sworn to uphold. Does that make it BAD? NO. Continuously violating the law by those who should be upholding it is. As in the case at hand.

Posted by: KAP at June 16, 2011 3:00 PM
Comment #324546

stephen

“If exceptions can be made to the rights of free speech, why not the right to bear arms?”


what exceptions to the right of free speach would those be? please elaborate.


“My philosophy is that if the person has the ability to get a gun that has reasonable lethal capacity (not in favor of assault weapons being generally available) in short order (a couple weeks, or shorter if practicable), that both satisfies the amendment, and satisfies public safety.”

stephen there’s no reason it needs to take weeks to take possesion of a gun the NICS system works fine. in most cases it takes @ an hour to run the check.


there is no such thing as an “assault weapon”. that is a name created by the gun ban crowd designed to demonize a peticular type of gun. the correct term would be gas operated semi-automatic rifle. not quite as eveil sounding is it? the name “assault weapon” serves the same purpose as the term “cop killer bullets”. it demonizes an inanimate object, in order to fire up peoples emotions. BTW there is an assault rifle but to fit that category it must have select fire capabilities, ie it has to have auto fire setting. NFA made the possesion of these guns without a license illegal. you must have a class 3 firearms license to own or possess an automatic weapon.


“When al-Qaeda starts advising its agents to lurk in gun shows to get their weapons, you know you have a security hole on your hands.”


how many gun shows have you attended?


Posted by: dbs at June 16, 2011 4:42 PM
Comment #324547

SD

“Or the arrogance to simply insist on cariacturing your opponent’s point of view, irrespective of anything he says.”

Are you speaking of my praise for Rep. Cummings?

If that is what you are referring to then you are one sick dude. I was straight forward in my praise for him and it came from the heart. Rep. is probably the most honest liberal in congress. I disagree with him most of the time, but he approaches his job with integrity.

Sorry that your character cannot praise someone that normally you oppose.

The arrogance is yours, sweet Charlotte.

Posted by: tom humes at June 16, 2011 4:51 PM
Comment #324549

steve miller

in the second amendment, the key phrase is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
it is an individual, not a collective right. all the rights in the first 10 amendments are individual rights. they are limits, or lines drawn in the sand by the const. that fed gov’t is prohibited from crossing. the other thing i might add, and folks seem to forget these days, or just ignore, is that the fed gov’ts powers are listed in the const. if it is not specified in the const. the fed gov’t does not have the authority to do it.

Posted by: dbs at June 16, 2011 5:11 PM
Comment #324550

KAP-
Enlighten me about some things here.

1) Was this a crime, or simply a horrible, preventible mistake? The rhetoric wants to see a crimes’ been committed, but I haven’t heard about anybody being indicted yet. Or what they’d be indicted for. If they intentionally meant to deliver weapons to the Cartel, then there’s no question of what remedies are appropriate. If they just did so by screwing up a decision, then black marks in files, relief of responsibilities, firings and resignations are in order, to the degree its appropriate in each case.

2) Who died and made Issa a US Attorney, or a federal judge? The courts have the power to try people, the executive branch to prosecute. He can only suggest charges, he can’t make them.

tom humes-
Why do you think praising Rep. Cummings gets you a free pass on distorting my views? And please, show where I criticized Rep. Cummings.

No? I didn’t? Well, that’s because I’m not the kind of person who goes “Et Tu, Fellow Democrat” everytime he or she doesn’t take the opportunity to stick it to a Republican. But really, Issa shouldn’t need to censor or try to intimidate witnesses to make his point. I know this is a personal point of view, and consistent with an ascribed bias, but I see it as sort of a petty sort of thing that he didn’t let the view get aired, and over with.

dbs-
Okay, when it says “The right of the people”, that’s not a collective right? That’s such a dimwitted argument. The plural makes it obvious. The individual side of the argument is implicit, though, as the people cannot bear arms unless the person can bear arms.

Some are trying to make the Constitution and the Bill of Rights all about individual rights, but the constitution talks in several places about rights, duties, obligations, and powers being given to the people, the states, Congress, or the national government as a whole.

Frankly, my opinion is where they wanted a right to be collective, they said so, where they wanted it to be individual, they said so, and where they didn’t give a crap how it was viewed, they just wrote out the right, and didn’t imply things one way or another.

The Constitution works, in my view, because it doesn’t just give away the store to one set of interests or another, but instead creates balances between them, between men and women, white and nonwhite, the individual and the people, the folks of one party and those of others, the states and the federal government and so on. Nobody gets to win permanently, so nobody feels so disadvantage as to feel it necessary to destroy the system and start over.

Just look at how many Governments elsewhere have risen and fallen over the last two hundred and thirty something years. The world looks nothing like it once did, yet America remains essentially under the same government it started out with.

Why? Because it’s democratic and republican nature (small d and small r on purpose) helped us negotiate the changes that our republic needed to endure, and to prosper in different times.

To cariacture it to merely a bunch of individual rights is to miss the point of many of them. What is the right to assemble but a collective right? And who says the right to free speech only works for those who speak for themselves, and not for those who speak for many together?

It’s more a philosophical “angels dancing on the head of a pin” sort of argument, in my opinion, which only occasionally enters into legal significance.

More important is whether the prohibition against infringement is satisfied only if we allow people to have theoretically infinite firepower. I mean, would the Republic really benefit if somebody could own their own artillery? Could it survive?

No, we can limit the firepower people have, yet still allow them to keep and bear arms. We can revoke that right for those who do not fulfill their obligations as citizens, or who are not of sound enough mind to be expected to meet a citizens obligations as a gun owner. I hardly think that the framers wrote that amendment believing that the government’s refusal to let somebody from an asylum arm themselves was out of the question.

As for this:

the other thing i might add, and folks seem to forget these days, or just ignore, is that the fed gov’ts powers are listed in the const. if it is not specified in the const. the fed gov’t does not have the authority to do it.

The Constitution says that Congress can legislate whatever is necessary and proper to carry out the duties, obligations and powers that are listed in the constitution. That means if something is permissable under the commerce clause, the government can write up the laws necessary and proper to carrying out that regulation.

The issue with your interpretation is that you’re arbitrarily trying to cut off the Federal Government’s power and authority in a way even the framers did not do.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2011 6:16 PM
Comment #324551

in the second amendment, the key phrase is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
it is an individual, not a collective right. all the rights in the first 10 amendments are individual rights. they are limits, or lines drawn in the sand by the const. that fed gov’t is prohibited from crossing. the other thing i might add, and folks seem to forget these days, or just ignore, is that the fed gov’ts powers are listed in the const. if it is not specified in the const. the fed gov’t does not have the authority to do it.

Posted by: dbs at June 16, 2011 05:11

dbs is absolutely correct. I find it so interesting that dem/libs such as SD discount the individual in favor of the group when it comes to our “rights”. They are all individual rights, not group rights. Of course, the dem/libs must demand group rights to promote liberal ideas.

SD and I have had this discussion numerous times. He is a “group right” person but can’t defend it constitutionally. So, his past comments usually include something about the common good. In doing so, he confuses “rights” with what he perceives as good. Our constitution does not define good, nor does it demand good. The libs alone demand what they perceive as good, and then want to fund that perception with other peoples money and deny the “rights” of some to accomplish that end.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 16, 2011 6:47 PM
Comment #324553

SD writes; “That means if something is permissable under the commerce clause, the government can write up the laws necessary and proper to carrying out that regulation.”

That clause is being tested as we speak in the highest courts in our land as it pertains to the o’bama health care plan. So far, o’bama and his government lawyers are losing the battle. I expect the supreme court to declare that the commerce clause has limits, and dear leader, Pelosi and Reid have exceeded those limits.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 16, 2011 6:57 PM
Comment #324554

Stephen, It’s a congressional hearing into why the drug cartels were able to get guns, and why the ATF along with others looked the other way or agents were told to stand down. Did you watch or read what went on at the hearings or are you baseing your comments on the rag you linked to. It seems to me Stephen like your info on Weiner you missed the boat on this one to. I never said Issa was a federal judge or a U.S. attorney. WHERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM. And yes as a matter of fact by turning and looking the other way laws were broken by those in charge and they should be brought up on charges and serve prison time not the slap on the wrist that you suggest.

Posted by: KAP at June 16, 2011 6:58 PM
Comment #324559

35,000 Innocent Mexican’s dead 111 U.S citizens in Mexico dead, and 1 border patrol agent’s life are no mistake Stephen. The above stats come from a Newsmax article

Posted by: KAP at June 16, 2011 7:29 PM
Comment #324563

stephen

“Okay, when it says “The right of the people”, that’s not a collective right? That’s such a dimwitted argument. The plural makes it obvious. The individual side of the argument is implicit, though, as the people cannot bear arms unless the person can bear arms.”

and the person does not have to be part of a group in order to bear arms which makes it individual. you just undermined your own point. so who is the true dimwitt?

“Some are trying to make the Constitution and the Bill of Rights all about individual rights, but the constitution talks in several places about rights, duties, obligations, and powers being given to the people, the states, Congress, or the national government as a whole”

the const. grants the fed gov’t limited, and enumerated powers, and protects the rights of the individual.

“What is the right to assemble but a collective right? And who says the right to free speech only works for those who speak for themselves, and not for those who speak for many together?”

the right to assemble is the right to freedom of association. one can choose to, or not to associate. once again that would make it an individual right, as they can also choose not to associate. people can speak as a group, but in order to speak as a group they first need the right to speak as an individual.

“The issue with your interpretation is that you’re arbitrarily trying to cut off the Federal Government’s power and authority in a way even the framers did not do.”


and the problem with yours is that it is so broad that nothing is off linits, and any gov’t power grab can be justified, if the party in power feels it suits thier agenda. something the founders definitely didn’t have in mind.

Posted by: dbs at June 16, 2011 8:36 PM
Comment #324565

KAP-
You’ve accounted for one gun deal. Unless that’s the only one they ever needed, then you’re missing the forest of gunrunning for one particular tree. Just read this article from 2009.

Ask yourself a question: what is it that the ATF stood by and watched here? They stood by and watched while folks with clean record bought guns easily by the ones and twos for the cartel, then transported them over the border.

The people running the cartels are not idiots. They know running the guns in huge numbers is going to attract attention. So they send folks who can pass for law-abiding citizens into gun shops to pick up their weapons for them, folks who aren’t really cartel.

Because of how light our laws are, folks caught at this barely get a slap on the wrist.

So let’s bust them, right? of course. Let’s bust the people doing this. But will that stop the flow? With literally thousands of gun shops along the border, they can take their pick and send their straw buyers to new ones.

So, the Border Agents, civilians, and others will still die. You’ll still see American guns going South to fuel the bloodshed. That is, until you start shutting down the loopholes, and start giving the law enforcement figures the legal backing necessary to actually impede the flow.

So wave the bloody shirt for your policy, and I’ll wave mine right back! Your policy on Gun control is costing people’s lives.

If, as is advisable, we’re not going to look the other way in hopes we can follow these guns to their real buyers, then why aren’t we going to toughen the laws that give these arrests meaningful results? Why not send the message: buy for the Cartel, go to jail for years.

Tell me, where the disagreement? If you can’t support such laws, then may God have mercy on your soul, because you’re cursing and berating the ATF for holding out for the bigger fish when catching the smaller ones won’t create real results. You’re putting them in an impossible position.

Royal Flush-
What are “people” Is one person a “people”? How do the rights expressly given to “the people” not constitute collective rights?

You know it’s real funny. You accuse me of being a “group right” person, but unlike you, I don’t restrict myself to one end of this numbers game or the other.

I don’t think the Constitution is all that picky about it. I think you are. I don’t think anybody else is obligated to share that point of view.

I can defend my point of view, and have by pointing out that in a number of cases the constitution deals in rights and obligations that can only make sense when more than one person is involved. Also, a number of passages in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution speak of rights held by the people.

Now what I have said is that Congress is in fact able to legislate new rights. The ninth amendment says that the enumeration of rights doesn’t mean that these are the only rights people can have. And it explicitly mentions people, people and states, which are not entities that fit easily into the category of individuals. If rights only belong to individuals, then what is the deal with the phrasing of the Ninth and tenth Amendments? Since when did Ohio become an individual, rather than a state with many people in it, all of whom are a part of it, citizens of it? How can the people of such a state be guaranteed the right of republican government (small r, don’t get excited,) if rights only go to the individuals?

My argument is not that collective rights are the only rights we have, the way yours is individual rights are the only rights we have.

No, mine is that collective rights, and collective senses to those rights exist right along alongside individual, and individual sense of those rights.

You’re trying to push some philosophical point under the guise of constitutional originalism, but a plain language reading of the document, and a moments thought for how its provisions might apply don’t support such a strict position.

As for what I consider rights? I’m afraid I don’t get as fancy as you. A right can be a freedom, like the freedom to speak your mind. It can be an entitlement you get for being, say, born in the United states, like Becoming a citizen, or being able to run for President. It can be a principle of what you can expect as a citizen of this country. I believe that it’s an American’s right to be sold food that’s not rotten, and drugs that aren’t needlessly dangerous, ineffective, or adulterated in unhealthy ways. I believe an American being sold a product has a right to expect it will work as it’s sold to work.

Some rights are enshrined in the constitution, and are not easily altered. Other rights are more mutable, and which ones you have depend on who is in charge.

Our constitution does not define good, nor does it demand good. The libs alone demand what they perceive as good, and then want to fund that perception with other peoples money and deny the “rights” of some to accomplish that end.

This is such a naive argument, I don’t know where to begin. Yes, the constitution doesn’t define good, it leaves that up to the people, and to their delegates in Congress and the Senate. That’s part of the beauty of it: the common good isn’t defined in some dusty book or on some rusty tablet, it is defined by each generation in turn, as they want to define it. They live with the mistakes they make, in turn, and as people take over for them, they get other ideas of how to run things.

But really, Republicans and conservatives don’t demand what they perceive as good, and fund their perceptions with other people’s money? They don’t deny the rights of others to that end? Bull****!

Your side and my side both contend over what we perceive as the common good. That’s democracy. Each side governs with money taking from both sides. Democrats fund their initiatives withe Republican money, and Republicans fund things with the money that Democrats made. Neither side has complete freedom to do what they want with their own, and neither side ever will. A real world democracy taxes the dissenters with the supporters. It’s unavoidable.

And it’s the reason we contend in elections: to determine who it is who controls the agenda on deciding what to do with that money, what rights to affirm or deny, what obligations to require or lift.

You’re so wrapped up in getting what you want that you’ve forgotten the purpose of Democracy: to bring compromise between those who disagree on what the general interests of the country are.

As for as the necessary and proper clause goes, I wouldn’t hold my breath on the courts rejecting it’s use. That clause’s use is as old as the country itself, because it can’t really be argued that the Framers intended to give the government power, but not the means to carry it out.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2011 9:49 PM
Comment #324566

Stephen, What is my policy? Light laws my ASS. When the people who are supposed to enforce the law are the ones breaking the law we have no law. If the feds enforced and secured the southern border this s—t wouldn’t be going on, so more of government NOT doing their job. What does a law abiding citizen look like Stephen?

Posted by: KAP at June 16, 2011 10:06 PM
Comment #324567

dbs-

and the person does not have to be part of a group in order to bear arms which makes it individual. you just undermined your own point. so who is the true dimwitt?

I wasn’t calling you dimwitted, just the argument. Everybody makes mistakes.

But what does it say? If we’re being literal here, let’s go down to the basic quotation: “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Not “the right of the individual” or “the right of a citizen”, “the right of the people.”

Now, we can get all bent out of shape, and interpret this in a mutually exclusive fashion, with the collective term barring individual gun ownership in civilian sense, or you can relax your semantic sphincter, and remember that the Constitution was written in plain language. Clearly, by the logic of the amendment, if you are one of the people, you have the right to keep and bear arms. It’s a right you share with many, with your fellow Citizens.

Only in this bizarre funhouse of anti-liberal interpretation, where anything that smacks of the collective must be beaten down, do we see this become a sticking point.

The trouble here is that when you say collective, I hear the dictionary definition, Which goes “denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole”.

And I think, what’s wrong with a group of people or the nation in general enjoying it according to another definition “shared or assumed by all members of the group”

Okay, so we all share free speech rights, civil liberties, etc. What’s wrong with that sense of a collective right?

I haven’t been stewing in toxic anti-liberalism for so long that I see the need to always insist on an individual sense of society in all cases and in all ways.

But I’m not prejudiced the other way. I see both ways of looking at rights as useful. Organizations decide between themselves, as groups, what they’re going to say. When you bash somebody for simply repeating a talking point, you’re accusing them of joining the collective of their choice in their opinion, rather than figuring out things for themselves. We also talk about corporate PR, and political messaging- all cases of collectively decided upon communication.

The reality is, of course, that none of us acts purely as a free agent. Everybody makes the decision at some point to trust what somebody says, to repeat what somebody else has told them, to devote less thought to it than they might otherwise have.

This can be problematic, but it’s also what you count upon in the Free Market to be your invisible hand, people coming to agreement, and adopting somebody else’s ideas and philosophies.

Well, in the marketplace of ideas, I’d say, you can switch gears as you will. Just like a person can buy a car, and then customize and retool it, perhaps even beyond recognition, we can do the same with the ideas we get from others.

The beauty of America is that you’re not just forced to pick from one or two competitors, you can listen to anybody you want to, and figure out things for yourself, if you’re willing to put the time and effort into it.

I see rights in both senses. People act in both collective, social ways, as a people, as a state or local government, as Americans, and as individuals. It’s not either/or, but both/and.

As for this?

and the problem with yours is that it is so broad that nothing is off linits, and any gov’t power grab can be justified, if the party in power feels it suits thier agenda. something the founders definitely didn’t have in mind.

Ah, you’re missing something, and it’s pretty critical from my perspective. In fact, it’s literally a matter of what’s critical.

My theory of politics is built on the notion that people interacting with one another can build up their sentiments into a critical mass of support or opposition for whatever it is that the government is pushing. If it’s hateful enough, if it appalls people enough, sooner or later, it will end. And if people love it? Well then those in government who take the hammer to it will find themselves the ones hurting in the morning.

My sensibility is that you can trust the people to eventually stand up for their interests. Me, I want them to become more assertive, not wait until a disaster to examine or challenge something. I want people to be motivated to examine what their nation is doing, what their politicians are doing. This fog of general dislike is not enough, not motivating enough to force change.

Only when people realize that they don’t just have to stand up against the great forces and institutions alone, will they have the strength to pit their collective power, both in terms of will and in terms of means, against the collective power of their government and of the big businesses and institutions. Only then will Americans themselves perform the function that the framers had for them: to be the moderating force on those who would take certain policies and behaviors too far.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2011 10:25 PM
Comment #324568

KAP-
Clean criminal record, probably conforming to the clean cut look that keeps police attention off them.

But as for your objection to the light laws, tell me, why then that the Mexican Cartels are doing this, using the straw buyers? They’re taking the path of least resistance.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2011 10:28 PM
Comment #324569

Stephen, Your assesment of a law abiding citizen just describe most people who are serving time and those who are not. Let me ask you Stephen, What are so light about our laws? Isn’t a criminal background check good enough by the FBI? How many law abiding citizens are going to go to a gun shop to buy an AK47 or 50 cal assult rifle? These guys aren’t buying from the local gun shop, they’re buying black market bulk. Do you think a law abiding citizen is going to go to a gun shop and buy a case of 9mm hand guns and a case of shells?

Posted by: KAP at June 16, 2011 10:48 PM
Comment #324571

KAP-
Did you even bother to read the article I referenced? They’re buying the guns individually through straw-buyers, and transporting them by the ones or twos, rather than several at a time. Why? from my linked article:

During one transaction, Iknadosian gave advice to an informant who was recording him about how to buy weapons and smuggle them, according to a transcript.

He told the informant to break the sales up into batches and never to carry more than two weapons in a car.

“If you got pulled over, two is no biggie,” Iknadosian is quoted as saying in the transcript. “Four is a question. Fifteen is, ‘What are you doing?”’

From an earlier part:

“We can move against the most outrageous purveyors of arms to Mexico, but the characteristic of the arms trade is it’s a ‘parade of ants’ - it’s not any one big dealer; it’s lots of individuals,” said Arizona’s attorney general, Terry Goddard, who is prosecuting Iknadosian. “That makes it very hard to detect because it’s often below the radar.”

Reporting requirements are poor, especially with gun show purchases. These are the folks who weren’t moved against, not folks with huge crates worth of weapons, but folks hired to be intermediaries, who got the guns that eventually filtered over into Mexico. Put simply, these are the straw-buyers the people are talking about.

And that’s what makes the ATF agent’s testimony of urgent concern, and Issa’s rejection of that testimony telling. God help us if we do something that might slow the sales of the gunmakers. God help us if we require a little bit more documentation of “military-style weapons”

If you can’t get that guy to actually turn over on the person who employed them, arresting them’s not going to slow things down. They’ll just pay somebody else with a clear record (you know, the person who can appear like a law abiding citizen for the background test) to do the same thing.

The issue here is whether, for all the high moral dudgeon, the Republicans have the political will to do what’s necessary to actually stop this method of smuggling guns.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2011 11:59 PM
Comment #324572

Stephen, The whole point of the testimony was why were the ATF agents told to stand down, not our gun laws. As I said earlier if a person wants to buy a gun bad enough he or she will find a way no matter what our gun laws are. Besides IMO most of the ones who are doing the buying are illegals anyway who have the drug money to buy the weapons.

Posted by: KAP at June 17, 2011 12:21 AM
Comment #324573

Stephen, By the way buying and transporting are 2 different things. Most will buy bulk but transport a few at a time. Also stricter gun laws just hamper the law abiding people not the criminals.

Posted by: KAP at June 17, 2011 12:27 AM
Comment #324575

stephen

“But what does it say? If we’re being literal here, let’s go down to the basic quotation: “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Not “the right of the individual” or “the right of a citizen”, “the right of the people.””


the term “the people” is meant to be all inclusive, as in everyone. it is not meant to bestow the right on the people only as a group.


“If it’s hateful enough, if it appalls people enough, sooner or later, it will end.”

that depends on what it, is. if it is someones speech that the majority doesn’t like, then no they can’t silence or take it away.


“And if people love it? Well then those in government who take the hammer to it will find themselves the ones hurting in the morning.”

if it violates the const. then it can be taken away, and should.

Posted by: dbs at June 17, 2011 8:31 AM
Comment #324579

“The right to bear arms is not absolute even under the most conservative reading of the amendment.” Posted by: Rich at June 16, 2011 08:55 AM

Your last statement is false; the USSC upheld the right to keep and bare arms in 2010”

Tom,

What the Supreme Court majority opinion in Heller stated on regulatory control was:

“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Scalia writing for the majority in Heller.

It went on to say in Heller that the state has the right to issue licensing requirements if it is not arbitrarily or capriciously enforced. It does not have the right, however, to deny a citizen a license to obtain and keep a gun, thereby denying a citizen his 2nd amendment rights. In other words, a total ban would be impermissible.

The degree to which states can establish limits on the exercise of 2nd amendment rights through licensing requirements, commercial sale regulations, etc., has not actually been established. Total bans are surely impermissible. However, the courts have not fully fleshed out the regulatory limits.

Posted by: Rich at June 17, 2011 10:16 AM
Comment #324580

SD

It is quite obvious you did not watch the hearing nor do you have a transcript of the hearing.

Straw purchasers bought in large quantities. In the case of one purchase it amounted to 16. They are not buying in quantities of 1 or 2. The straw buyers are financed by people well heeled in the money to buy in quantities. They then also signed paperwork falsely. When the ATF agents tailed them to another location and the purchasers unloaded the vehicle into another vehicle of an unknown individual, the ATF agents requested to interdict and were told to stand down. So unknown individuals then were allowed to deliver the guns to their destination without being touched, by the authority of higher up in ATF. They were in fact part of the scheme of straw purchase and delivery of guns sold in the Phoenix area, with the blessing of the authority of ATF and also DOJ. The federal prosecutor in Phoenix also would not prosecute. The ATF agents that testified were seasoned veterans. Their testimony was that they had absolutely no problem get prosecution in other areas of the country with cases of similar types.

Stephen, you need to read the transcript of the hearing and followup hearings to get the facts. You are in the dark on this one. You are developing and revealing a track record that does not include integrity in your resources and therefore your own writing.

Posted by: tom humes at June 17, 2011 11:09 AM
Comment #324581

dbs-

the term “the people” is meant to be all inclusive, as in everyone. it is not meant to bestow the right on the people only as a group.

I believe I said something to that effect, but still, it is a collective right, by definition. The Framers, I submit, effortlessly switched gears between rights as given to individuals, and rights as given to the people, because they weren’t as hung up as modern conservatives are on the agency of the individual.

I think today’s conservatives take their own ideas too seriously, and everbody else’s way too little. They dismiss people’s pain and suffering too easily, and take note of their ideas too little. Republicans and conservatives need to get back in touch, to make their peace with the rest of the country, and stop trying to force there way on people. Really, what’s going to happen, is if they leave enough stamped finger and black eyes, even if they win, people will turn against them and their hold on power when the get the opportunity, and every time this happens, it will be that much harder to get back into power.

As for what violates the Constitution? The trouble’s going to be that what violates it, according to you, violates it according to your own esoteric notion of what the constitution says.

And really, if doing away with it hurts people enough, they’re going to come right back and support revisions to the constitution enabling it to happen.

Republicans and conservatives need to learn that if the push people hard enough, they’ll see folks push right back.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 17, 2011 11:22 AM
Comment #324583

stephen

a group is made up of individuals. by bestowing the right on a group you are also bestowing that right on each individual. you connot have group rights without individual rights. your theory fails when you consider the origin of those rights.

the founders believed our rights were inalienable, in other words bestowed upon us by our creator. the bill of rights is not a list of rights granted by gov’t. it is merely a restating of the natural rights they felt were most important to enumerate.

gov’t is nothing more than a nessesary evil at best, and a force for tyranny at worst. we have gone way past the first, and are well into the second.

Posted by: dbs at June 17, 2011 12:37 PM
Comment #324585

SD writes; “I think today’s conservatives take their own ideas too seriously, and everbody else’s way too little.”

Yes, we do take our constitutional rights very seriously. Why would a conservative consider your liberal ideas concerning these rights as anything except an attempt to destroy those rights.

SD has often in the past, and presently, confused “rights” with “needs”. If one reads his post above, that observation is easily confirmed.

The liberal, wishing to convey “rights” on certain groups of people first declares a need that is being unfilled for a group. The next step is to convince those folks that those unfilled needs are actually “rights” to which they are entitled. When enough people concur they form political action groups to force congress to address those unmet needs. Some in congress care little about “rights” as their election requires filling needs. In the process, those receiving government largess to fill their needs become convinced that those needs have become constitutional “rights”.

It is absolutely critical for liberalism to survive that more and more group needs become group “rights”. Rather than each individual being responsible for his/her own “needs”, the responsibility is passed to government as “group rights”.

SD never considers that our constitutional “rights” require no outlay of money to purchase, only to defend. The reason of course, is that our founders recognized that our constitutional rights come from God, not man. Needs, on the other hand, always require money to fulfill. Money must then flow from those who have to those who want.

The question then becomes, if these needs are actually “rights”, who will pay for them? The answer is always, the money will come from those who already have filled those needs themselves without government funds. Because those folks have their needs filled it becomes their duty to fill the needs of others as well at their own personal expense. In this fashion, in filling the needs of others, needs now considered “rights”, the constitutional “rights of some are sacrificed for the “needs” of others.

In a previous post SD commented, paraphrasing, that needs trump constitutional rights. It is just this kind of liberal thinking that must be stopped, reversed, and eliminated.

Liberalism/Socialism is insidious. The obvious fallacy is that when enough folks demand government money for their needs there are not enough folks left earning and paying to meet either their own, or others needs and the Road To Hell begins.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 17, 2011 12:57 PM
Comment #324591

RF

Very well said. I personally believe Liberals have a mental bloc that does not allow them to understand a Constitutionalist. On BW that is showed from time to time.

Posted by: tom humes at June 17, 2011 2:51 PM
Comment #324593

I agree Tom. I call this mental block a mental disorder. Despite the existence of the documents founding and governing this nation, available for anyone to read and most to understand, there remains disagreement over the definition and meaning of constitutional “rights” versus human “needs”. Rights in our constitution have been clearly defined. Needs have not.

I do not object to our government using taxpayer money to fulfill the needs of its citizens. It is the responsibility of the electorate to elect those persons believed to be best prepared to do that within the confines of our constitution, regulations and laws.

What I object to is having any need by the citizenry given the same status as rights. A need can be legislated. A right can not. Rights exist all the time, everywhere in this nation, and are possessed by every individual. Needs can be temporary or permanent, be local, statewide, or national, and be peculiar to only some of the citizenry.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 17, 2011 3:28 PM
Comment #324594

RF and th, the two of you are probably the worst offenders that some are having reference to in here. You refuse to accept that you are doing nothing but stirring up the pot in here and continue bait everyone with your snide comments.
I’m glad you’ve identified the commonality ‘we’ share as a mental block or mental disorder. Who the “F” ever gave you the idea that you had the mentality to comprehend anything??
You’re not impressing anyone but each other and perhaps one or two other suck-ups.
Either quit with your crap or find some other place to try and impress someone with your lack of wisdom.

Posted by: jane doe at June 17, 2011 5:17 PM
Comment #324595

Well thank you Jane for sharing your honest assessment of me. I would also be interested in your assessment of my comments.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 17, 2011 5:36 PM
Comment #324598

jane doe

You have exhibited elitism and censorship first class.

Stirring the pot on WB is the only place I’m allowed to cook. So I have to take advantage of it and exploit myself for my ego’s sake. Do want icing on the cake, also.

Posted by: tom humes at June 17, 2011 6:35 PM
Comment #324602

RF, I believe that was covered in the last sentence….the crap part.
th, those are big words in your first sentence, and just because this may be the only place you’ve not been kicked out of permanently, doesn’t mean your ego exploitation is welcome here, either.

Posted by: jane doe at June 17, 2011 8:08 PM
Comment #324603

tom humes-
We have minds of our own. It will take more than just screaming at us for not understanding the beauty and the genius of your political theories to get people persuaded. The Republicans and Conservatives nowadays have an entitlement complex a mile thick concerning people believing in their ideology.

You want to imagine that you’re the only ones who understand the constitution, fine. You want to believe that you’re the only ones who don’t have the mental bloc, fine. But really, expect your message to have limited appeal then. You can stir the pot, but like whatever you’re stirring it with, you’ll only be going in circles.

(Oh, before I forget: what did Jane doe prevent you from publishing or force you to withdraw from being published? The word censorship has a definition, and if nothing you’ve written is gone at her hand, nothing she’s done fits it.)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 17, 2011 8:09 PM
Comment #324604

Jane writes; “RF, I believe that was covered in the last sentence….the crap part.”

Wow, what an elegant assesssment. Rarely have I read such insight and wisdom. Perhaps Jane will feel better in the morning.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 17, 2011 8:18 PM
Comment #324610

Royal Flush-
I made a general point there about conservatives taking their own ideas too seriously, and you helped me prove it very well.

You got all these notions about our intentions and our goals, but all of them are not only wrong, but in many cases pretty ****ing stupid, implausible for any person of reasonable sense.

Look, the Constitution itself says in the Ninth Amendment “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

I mean, really. Congress can create new rights. And subsequent congresses can revoke them, if the Constitution doesn’t say they can’t. Same thing with Obligations, constitutionally upheld powers of government, and so on and so forth. The framers intended our government to have flexibility to meet the needs of the people.

And no, it’s not evil to talk about needs. The whole ****ing point about the American Revolution was to get a government that was sensitive to our needs and concerns, rather than some arrogant bunch of aristocrats in some other country making arbitrary policy without our having any voice in it. A government that’s not serving the needs of its people is a government that needs to be dissolved in favor of one that will take care of its responsibilities properly.

As for this:

The reason of course, is that our founders recognized that our constitutional rights come from God, not man.

Read the minutes of the constitutional convention. Read the Constitution itself, which has no mention of God at all.

I mean, really, a lot of people like to play dress-up, and then pretend like the framers were all like them. But if some Democrat today wrote a version of the Bible that cut out all the miracles, I wonder what you’d be saying about that person. I think you’d call Thomas Jefferson a Godless Liberal, and declare him anathema. I wonder what the people who went after Anthony Weiner would make of the air-bath taking, womanizing deist agnostic amateur Scientis Benjamin Franklin.

I wonder how many great figures in our history, and even your party’s history would be excluded based on your current extreme positions.

As fo your rights and needs thing?

Get your butt back in the real world. All nations have needs. And I’mn not talking your impenetrably vague talk of needs, I’m talking about things like having a functioning economy, or a fair court system. Or how about one where there isn’t some sort of crisis going on, because the Republicans want to block federal court appointees until a friendly Republican can do the appointing.

We can debate what the needs we take care of with the government, and the rights conferred by it should be. But I am not going take up your anti-government brainwashing on what my own intentions are. I know my own mind, it’s time for you to stop lying about about what I believe to our fellow readers.

As for this whole mental disorder thing? We often define mental disorders in legal terms by saying a person might be a danger to themselves and others. I think your positions on the debt ceiling and on Medicare, respectively, fit those categories nicely.

But hey, all kidding aside, is conservativism a form of insanity? No. I’m a millenial with no piercings, no tattoos, and who doesn’t even drink alcohol or smoke. I’m not a pacifist. Left to myself, I might have been a good and loyal moderate Republican, except for the fact that the Republicans not only couldn’t bother to have a moderate wing, they couldn’t bother to be nice about showing anybody who wasn’t a hardline conservative the door. I know that sounds a little funny, but really, a respect for the traditions of good conduct would go a long way towards soothing people’s concerns.

But hey, Republicans don’t need to convince anybody of anything, right? They can just impose their will on everybody, and if they don’t like it, here’s a sock in the eye!

Except, of course, people aren’t going to stand for that. Give them the excuse and they’ll blowtorch you with that anger they’ve been building up.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 17, 2011 9:04 PM
Comment #324612

SD

They still have openings on SNL and on other comedy shows.

BTW-JD advocated censorship and told me to go somewhere else. Oh, well haha you libs really haha frost me haha.
It is really haha a joy for me haha to watch you libs haha make such fools haha out of yourself. Hahahahahahahahahaha choke hahahahahahahahha.

Posted by: tom humes at June 17, 2011 9:16 PM
Comment #324613

stephen


“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

the founders believed our rights came from our creator, which means that gov’t cannot take them away.

Posted by: dbs at June 17, 2011 9:20 PM
Comment #324628

Don’t hurt yourself now, tom humes. ;-)

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at June 18, 2011 12:29 AM
Comment #324632

Spinny Liberal

Laughing that hard does give me Acid Reflux. lol

Posted by: tom humes at June 18, 2011 10:58 AM
Comment #324634

SD writes; “A government that’s not serving the needs of its people is a government that needs to be dissolved in favor of one that will take care of its responsibilities properly.”

Our government was established with a document clearly defining what powers it had. Could SD enlighten us with the sentence in our founding documents that addresses group needs rather than individual rights?

Since SD is incapable of seperating “rights” from “needs”, he has resorted to party politics as usual. Our founders clearly understood the difference between a right and a need and address only one…individual “rights”.

In poker, the term “tell” is used to describe some habit of expression that reveals some insight into what the player may be thinking about a particular hand he/she is holding. If one can detect and correctly read the “tell”, one can be more successful in their play.

SD has a “tell” that should be obvious to any careful reader. When he runs out of ammo to defend a position, or knows he is clearly on the wrong side of an argument, he begins to use **** words. Another “tell” is when he changes the subject to dwell on himself and his enlightenment.

The most telling “tell” (I love that pun) of all is when SD brings out his opinion (usually not his but rather that of some liberal he recently has read) and presents it as “fact”.

I must admit however, that political jousting with SD sometimes leaves me feeling guilty of engaging in an unfair fight. I bring a gun and he brings a knife. I have resolved to increase his handicap.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 18, 2011 11:44 AM
Comment #324638

tom humes - Hahaha. You know, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. ;-)

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at June 18, 2011 3:53 PM
Comment #324641

RF, I would agree that you are definitely on unfair levels when “jousting” with Stephen. Your constant and repeated references to diseased or demented characteristics in anyone outside of your thought path is way past OLD now! It wouldn’t be that difficult for any of us to meet you on what you feel is a different plane of mentality, but stooping that low doesn’t seem prudent.
You and your tag-team bud,th, are merely a pathetic display of juvenile, ridiculous hate-spewing antagonists. Glad you get such giggles out of your days.

Posted by: jane doe at June 18, 2011 4:36 PM
Comment #324642

Jane…I feel the love. Sure am glad you don’t attack the messenger, rather than the message.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 18, 2011 4:49 PM
Comment #324643

J.D. Stephen’s post had NOTHING to do with what Rep. Issa’s committee was holding hearings for. He was wrong on Weiner and wrong on this one. We try to point that out and as usual the liberal BS comes out.

Posted by: KAP at June 18, 2011 5:56 PM
Comment #324645

tom humes-
She’s impatient with the venom and contempt in your rhetoric. So am I. But I’ll beat you fair and square, instead of using my real authority to shut you up. Hell, I’ll use your own words to defeat you.

I don’t want to be another moron who succeeds because they got nasty enough and mean enough to drive off their competitors. I want to beat you fair and square on the facts to show it can be done, to show that we don’t have to wallow in a similar state of error to yours in order to win.

I want to prove on the merits that my side has the better ideas, and if we don’t, then come up with the new ideas that can do better. I’m not interested in pairing political or rhetorical success with policy failure, because one invalidates the other.

dbs-
Even if every framer was a devout Christian, your argument would still have this flaw: The point of saying that every person had rights endowed to them by their creator was to challenge the divine right of kings with the notion that the legitimacy of power for a King, stemmed from whether they treated their subject properly and governed well. This, rather than our rights being granted by the authority of the King, whose power over us flowed from God.

Look at all the nations and states that had official religions in that day, and how they worked. If their intention was to found a Christian Republic, they went the other way entirely.

Which is not to say that there weren’t devout Christians, or Christian influences. That’s never been what I said. What I’d say is that the framers and the nation as a whole made a deliberate decision not to use the power of government to compel, control or otherwise interfere with the religious rights of its citizens, or show favor to any one religion.

And I think that came out of a pragmatic realization that at the time of its founding, America was already a religiously diverse place, and no one side would succeed in bashing the other side into compliance. Slavery, contentious issue that it was, almost destroyed this nation. Religious conflicts could have created another dividing line, but the framers took a different course instead. The religious sought peace over power.

Because of that, the American people are a more religious people, because in our history, your religious was not a choice forced on you. You became a Baptist, a Catholic, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or whatever based on where your own choices took you, rather than based on what getting a government job, avoiding trouble with the Government, or knuckling under to a hostile, militant government got you.

It is one thing to write a law that promotes religion, and yet another for the law to achieve that in fact, and the track record throughout history is poor. One way or another, people will follow their consciences.

But getting back to the matter of the endowed rights, the point of what Jefferson said was to say to the parent country that they had to govern them wisely and well, and fulfill the needs of the people they were governing that government as supposed to fulfill. You want to make this argument of mine about Liberals gone wild, but it’s nothing like that.

People have this tendency to hearken back to the good-old days of America, forgetting that a lot of what we did, we did with the Government as an active partner in American prosperity and achievement. I don’t want the Government to do everything, or to be a slave to big business. I want it to keep the big businesses in check when they’re in the wrong, but at the same time, help promote what’s in the national interests.

I want a Government that helps to actively promote the good fortunes of the country.

Royal Flush-

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Yep, you bring a gun and I bring a knife. Right?

What will it take for you to admit that the framers weren’t all aggressive individualists? I mean, any time I bring up a collective noun, a first perspon plural pronoun, or anything else, you and your friends explain it away by saying that every group is made out of individuals. Well, jeez, pardon me for a moment while I sit down.

As for the tells? You have this bad habit of arguing in a “Heads I win, Tales you lose” sort of way, not employing valid logic, but instead pushing propositions that depend on something like me cursing, or me switching to more generalized arguments, rather than sourced ones.

Well, let me tell you, sometimes I curse. I have a full, rich and colorful vocabulary along those lines. Sometimes I get emotional. But if you think that this is a valid measure of the truth? No. The premises of the argument still hold the truth value of the argument, not the number of coins in the curse jar.

As for me getting generalized? Well, sir, after several years, and thousands of comments worth of sourced explanation, I feel that I’m entitled to offering my opinion in plain terms every now and then. I also don’t feel compelled to resources something when I’ve already offered sources for the counterargument within the same thread.

Now, you go look at my last comment to you, and you’ll see that I appeal to the ninth amendment in its entirety, and basically state a self-evident truth about Congress’s ability to legislate rights into and out of existence, in order to refute your notions about rights.

And I think the Preamble, and the matters that were discussed in the Declaration of Independence refute any notion that our government was purely a “go it alone” sort of institution. I know it’s easy and popular to maintain that the framers believed as you do, that everything you hold up as true has the Constitutional Imprimatur, and therefore can’t be questioned by us mere mortals.

But really, that’s not true. The framers, while not entirely unlike us, were nonetheless different. They were of a different time with different technology, different means of transportation and communication. We face dilemmas and issues they didn’t. We’ve resolved others they hadn’t. It is, in many cases, unknowable whether they would approve or disapprove of what we’ve made out of this country, what they would think of it, were they given the chance to properly investigate and learn the ins and outs of our system.

And really, our system, thank God, doesn’t depend on that. The Framers gave us a government that we could shape to meet our needs, to do what the Preamble indicates they wanted to do. The Framers gave us the ability to develop our own wisdom, to govern in the present moment, and live in the past.

One last thing before I go: I think the readers should take note where I transition into making a claim that is more opinion than fact. I think they should examine critically, what I’ve written, and ask for support if they deem it necessary. There are opinions you really can’t argue rationally and there are ones you can, and I want people to be clear on the whys and the wherefores of my arguments.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 18, 2011 6:39 PM
Comment #324646

KAP-
I’m clear on what Issa was doing.

Really, if he was investigating the failure with an open mind, both the situation that lead to the mistake and the mistake itself would get investigated.

But he has a preformed agenda in mind, and God help anybody who doesn’t stick to his script.

The man brought up a matter, a direction in the story, for whatever reason, that Issa was unwilling to explore.

Now, the lesson I learned with the Weiner case was that politics can lead us to overlook truths and possibilities that are staring us in the face. Issa, though, and other
Gun Rights advocates don’t want to look at any possibility like that, in terms of Gun Control, just as new regulations and laws concerning oil rigs and stock markets are still out of the question, even after the dreadful catastrophes involved.

You and others stand in judgment, but have you turned that scrutiny on yourselves? Has Issa, who still goes after Fannie and Freddie, despite a whole industry worth of evidence of intentionally ****ty deals, despite the well documented system of derivatives that were the true cause of the overleveraged state of the big banks.

No, the uncertainty has to come from regulation, it can’t come from the consequences of the financial mismanagement of the banks. Our tepid jobs market must be stated to be the result of the stimulus displacing jobs, even if no such displacement of money can be pointed to.

This is what I’m sick of. I work my ass off to bring these facts to people’s attention, and they just continue on with these stories, and the one time I get something seriously wrong, they tell me my credibility is shot.

Well, what about the credibility of every Right Winger on this site, then? No, no, I’m just going to get more obfuscation, more rationalizations, more attempts to ressurrect and maintain the policies that failed, and can be proved to have failed on objective terms.

It’s rather difficult to keep people honest, when you fail to do that yourself. I volunteered that I was wrong, because anything else would have made my credibility a joke. But some want to produce the opposite effect, claimed that acknowledged fallibility on one issue equals no credibility on any. Meanwhile, they repeat stuff I’ve already proven, on the merits, to be incorrect, and they come up with all kinds of drek to avoid having to admit they screwed up.

All folks who argue by logic will be faced with arguments that they lose on the merits, especially in a world where knowledge isn’t necessarily all there, all at once. But those who never let themselves lose an argument will twist their thinking in knots doing trying to prevent that, and those defects in thinking will lead them to make more mistakes, and lose the very credibility they fought to protect.

Issa cannot solve the problem he’s aiming his oversight investigations at if he’s not willing to see anything else but the opportunity to give the Obama Administration a black eye.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 18, 2011 7:07 PM
Comment #324648

SD

That is a whole lot of words to say, Obama, He’s da man.

Posted by: tom humes at June 18, 2011 7:35 PM
Comment #324649

tom humes-
And those are a few well chosen words to let people know you’re trafficking in stereotypes about black people.

Mow here’s a question: just how the hell does your side avoid similar such accusations when this is the kind of commercial your people offer up?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 18, 2011 7:41 PM
Comment #324650

Sorry I haven’t been around to comment; but I, unlike some others on WB, do have a life. I have spent the past few days golfing. That’s right my liberal friends; while 18% of Americans are unemployed and 40 million are collecting food stamps and waiting for the messiah obama to do something… but unlike the messiah, I used my own money, which I earned, and went on a golfing trip.

I must say, after being gone for several days, I find SD and the liberals still saying the same old tired comments. Nothing new:

SD continues:

“I think I’ve told you a million times that I am a liberal capitalist, but you don’t listen. You’re not in the business of listening, you’re in the business of finding an excuse to employ your one-size-fits-all rhetoric.
As an example, you’re asking me what my stance is, even though I just gave it to you! I said, if a law abiding citizen can arm themselves with a reasonable period of time, I think that’s enough gun control.
My philosophy is that if the person has the ability to get a gun that has reasonable lethal capacity (not in favor of assault weapons being generally available) in short order (a couple weeks, or shorter if practicable), that both satisfies the amendment, and satisfies public safety.
I don’t want to take away everybody’s guns. That’s an inane accusation. I want laws in place that make it easier to make the cases on those gun-runners, to put them behind bars. I want the gun show loophole closed up. When al-Qaeda starts advising its agents to lurk in gun shows to get their weapons, you know you have a security hole on your hands.”
First, how many conservatives on WB believe SD when he says he’s not a liberal socialist? And how many believe he’s a liberal capitalist? I believe the term “liberal/capitalist” is an oxymoron.

Tell me SD, what is a reasonable period of time for a law abiding citizen to arm themselves? The law says dealers can get and FBI profile on a person at the time of purchase. So, in your liberal socialist mind, this law is no good and we should have a law that meets your standards. Then you go on to say, “I think that’s enough gun control”, which makes you a liar, because you go on the make more demands. What is lethal capacity? Is this another one of YOUR demands on what is lethal? A couple of weeks will not satisfy the socialist. Nothing short of confiscation will satisfy your side of the isle. What constitutes an “assault weapon”? SD, since you have no military experience, I would expect that you have no idea what you are talking about when you use the term “assault weapons”. Some socialists have tried to include semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns as assault weapons. In fact, a few years ago when John Kerry was showing his pro-gun stance to the NRA members by going hunting, the very shotgun he was using had been listed by Kerry as an assault weapon. Of course, this is just liberal socialist double standards, as usual…

“John Kerry’s 20-year U.S. Senate voting record opposing Second Amendment rights brands him as the most anti-gun presidential nominee in U.S. history!

HERE’S PROOF

FACT: Kerry has voted nine times in favor of banning semi-auto firearms. 1

FACT: Kerry has voted to ban most center-fire rifle ammunition, including the most common rounds used by hunters and target shooters.2

FACT: Kerry has voted to close off hundreds of thousands of acres of the California Mojave Desert to hunting.3

FACT: Kerry has voted to hold the highly regulated American firearms industry legally responsible for the illegal acts of violent criminals.4

FACT: Kerry was one of only 15 Senators to oppose the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, which ended alarming abuses being committed under the 1968 Gun Control Act.5

FACT:Kerry was one of only 29 Senators to vote to prohibit gun manufacturers from discharging debts created by the reckless lawsuits filed by municipalities.6

FACT: Kerry has voted to allow BATF to conduct unlimited, warrant-less inspections of FFL holders.7

FACT: Kerry has voted to criminalize legal sales between private individuals at gun shows.8

FACT: Kerry has voted against increasing mandatory minimum and maximum penalties for the illegal transfer or use of a firearm. And yet he has also voted to impose penalties of a year in prison and a $10,000 fine on an adult if a juvenile steals a firearm from him, and then merely displays it in a public place.9

FACT: Kerry has voted to force many small firearms dealers out of business, which would have impacted both the availability and price of guns, particularly in rural areas.10

FACT: Kerry has voted 11 times to force law-abiding citizens to wait to exercise their Second Amendment rights. He voted to keep the federal waiting period after the National Instant Check System was in place.11

FACT: Kerry voted twice to eliminate the Civilian Marksmanship Program.12

FACT: Kerry wants to silence gun owners’ voice. When NRA sought the same exemption from campaign finance rules that news organizations have, Kerry called that effort “hijacking America’s airwaves.”13

FACT: Kerry commended the Million Mom March for their march on Washington that included calls for gun owner licensing, gun registration and other restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.14

FACT: Kerry twice supported legislation that would have mandated the inclusion of trigger locks with any handgun sale, forcing individual gun buyers to purchase products they did not necessarily want or need.15

FACT: If elected president, Kerry will pack the U.S. Supreme Court with Dianne Feinstein/Chuck Schumer/Ted Kennedy-selected anti-gun activists who believe you have no right to own any firearm.

FACT: Senator John Kerry has a 100% voting record with the Brady Campaign”

(http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/scorecard/scorecard.php?inds=42) (formerly Handgun Control Inc.), a national gun-ban group.

Or perhaps you support your messiah, who also has lofty goals of confiscating American citizen’s guns:

“Obama Pushes Anti-gun Treaty

WRITTEN BY ALEX NEWMAN
MONDAY, 04 MAY 2009 05:00


After a meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon last month, Barack Obama announced his support for the “Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking in Firearms” treaty, also known by its Spanish acronym CIFTA. The gun-control treaty was signed in 1997 by former President Bill Clinton, but was not ratified by the Senate as required by the Constitution.

Supporters of the Second Amendment have blasted the agreement as a dangerous infringement on the right to keep and bear arms and another attack on U.S. sovereignty. The agreement would create a national database of gun owners in America that could then be accessed by other signatory nations. It would even provide for the extradition of people found to be in violation of the terms.


“It would clear the way for imposing a national gun registry [and] would overturn the current prohibition on keeping centralized firearms records by the federal government,” explained Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America. “It reflects a deep distrust that the government of the United States has had towards the people.” The National Rifle Association has also issued a statement indicating that it will “vigorously oppose any international effort to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners.”


The treaty has already been ratified by 30 countries out of 34 in the Organization for American States (OAS), including the Dominican Republic, which signed on at the end of April. José Miguel Insulza, the secretary-general of the OAS, noted at the signing that the treaty “particularly stresses the needs for arms control; arms confiscation; regulating authorizations and licenses for export, import and transit; and strengthening controls at export points.” He added that “it was with great satisfaction” that he received the news about Obama prioritizing the treaty.


“As President Calderón and I discussed, I am urging the Senate in the United States to ratify an inter-American treaty known as CIFTA to curb small arms trafficking that is a source of so many of the weapons used in this drug war,” President Obama proclaimed in Mexico City last month. He also incorrectly repeated the errant statistic that 90 percent of guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels come from America. (In actuality, according to ATF special agent William Newell, about 17 percent of guns associated with crime in Mexico came from the United States. And this figure has not been broken down to see how many came from civilian gun shops and how many were purchased from the U.S. military by Mexico’s government.) “We’re going to be very focused on this. It’s going to be a top priority.” ABC News quoted an administration official who said that Obama “felt that it was important to push now for the ratification of this treaty because the question of illegal small-arms is of great concern to the countries throughout the hemisphere a[s] it affects their safety.”

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/1079

SD, of course, this was before America found out it was obama’s people who were supplying the guns to Mexico… Since you support obama and his policies, I am assuming you also support this proposal. Which also makes you a liar again, when you say you support the second ammendment.

“UN Small Arms Treaty Targets Second Amendment Rights

WRITTEN BY RAVEN CLABOUGH
WEDNESDAY, 08 JUNE 2011 14:47
0
The United Nations seemingly has it out for Americans’ Second Amendment-guaranteed rights as it continues to promote its “Small Arms Treaty.” The pact has already riled many gun owners as well as lawmakers such as Kentucky’s Republican Senator Rand Paul. The most recent attack against the treaty was launched by Larry Bell of Forbes magazine, who published an editorial about it yesterday.
According to Bell, the treaty, if ratified by the U.S. Senate, would force the United States to do the following:
• Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
• Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government, of course).
• Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull — one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
• Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
In short, Bell said, the treaty would override our national sovereignty, in the process giving license to the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.
Bell contended that while the purported intent of the treaty is to combat terrorism and insurgencies, the measure will actually target “our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.”
If signed, the treaty would give the Obama administration the opportunity to impose harsher domestic gun-control laws, such as more difficult licensing requirements and other increased regulations. Bell reported that the treaty would also create an “international gun registry” and allow the confiscation and destruction of “all unauthorized civilian firearms,” severely infringing upon Second Amendment rights.
It is worth noting that there is strong support for the treaty in the Obama administration, which in 2010 endorsed the UN Arms Treaty Resolution (along with 152 other nations), which establishes a 2012 conference that will draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already pledged to advocate for ratification with the U.S. Senate.
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton has already warned gun owners about the initiative, asserting that the UN is “trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/7784-un-small-arms-treaty-targets-second-amendment-rights

Thank God for conservative republicans who will not allow obama to ratify this. Do you support this SD, your messiah does. In fact Hillary Clinton helped write the UN legislation.

You double talk Stephen, you contradict yourself, and as I said juvenile and illogical, and this is all I have time for at the moment…

Posted by: Conservativerthinker at June 18, 2011 8:08 PM
Comment #324652

Then why did you post a link that had absolutly NOTHING to do with what Issa’s committee was having hearings for? IMO if you did in fact know what he was doing you wouldn’t have posted a link that had nothing to do with his hearings. Stephen.

Posted by: KAP at June 18, 2011 8:48 PM
Comment #324657
Nothing short of confiscation will satisfy your side of the isle.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are debating imaginary demons inside your mind. I suggest you go back to golfing when you learn to debate what others actually say instead of creating these sorts of strawmen.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 18, 2011 10:09 PM
Comment #324658

golfing when you.
golfing until you.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 18, 2011 10:11 PM
Comment #324660

tom humes-
And those are a few well chosen words to let people know you’re trafficking in stereotypes about black people.

Mow here’s a question: just how the hell does your side avoid similar such accusations when this is the kind of commercial your people offer up?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 18, 2011 07:41 PM

Tell me SD, have you ever watched the show “Whale Wars”? I compare the whale huggers with liberals socialists. It’s fine for them to throw prop fowlers in front of the Jap whaling ships in the middle of the antartic ocean, or shoot bottles of acid at the ships with potatoe launchers, but when the Japs strike back by sinking one of their boats, the whale huggers just cry and cry unfair. This is the way it is with this commercial of yours. As long as it is the left doing the attacking, it’s OK, but when the right does the same thing, the left cries like little babies. Get over it…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 18, 2011 10:18 PM
Comment #324661

WR, I suggest you grow up. And when you have learned something about the reality of life, you can come back and tell us what you know. Let’s see now; you are from one of the most liberal states in America, your head was filled with mush in the most liberal schools and universities, you have never held a real job other than for spending money, you have probably never made enough money on one year to actually pay taxes, your mommy is cooking your meals, and your daddy is paying for the roof over your head. And yet Oh wise one; you come on here and spout the same old liberal crap that Stephen has been spouting for years. The only difference between you and SD is perhaps 10 years of longevity. I must have touched a sore spot when I invoked the name of your other socialist senator. The first one is where he ought to be and paying the price for killing a pregnant girl and spending his whole life in the bottom of a liquor bottle. Thanks for the grammar correction; I guess you learned something besides how to hate America in those liberal schools.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 18, 2011 10:32 PM
Comment #324665
I must have touched a sore spot when I invoked the name of your other socialist senator.

Fuck Kerry, this has nothing to do with him. I’ve never voted for that sleazeball in my entire life (voted against him in 2008). This is just another one of your harebrained fantasies. You know hardly anything about my personal life. I don’t think you even know which university I attend. You don’t know anything about my financial situation or my family’s situation so stop proclaiming your ignorance. Everything you say is just a rehash of some stereotype. Well, it’s time to get real; most liberals don’t fit the funny caricature that you’ve drawn up. Maybe if you stopped deluding yourself, you’d see the reality of the world. Instead, I see just a constant reiteration of rightist rhetoric driven mainly by caricature and not by reality. I think if you actually stopped to think you would see that nowhere in Stephen’s writings does he advocate confiscation of people’s firearms. But, you cannot accept this fact because it would force you to reconsider your ideology, so you through up your partisan blinders and pretend that Stephen and the rest of us advocate confiscation when nothing could be further from the truth.

I believe the term “liberal/capitalist” is an oxymoron.
You don’t have a clue what capitalism is then. Capitalism is inseparable from a liberal society, which is a society that respects every person’s inherent individual liberty. Generally, this liberty can be thought of as the right to do whatever one pleases with one’s own resources so long as one doesn’t violate anyone else’s liberty.
you learned something besides how to hate America
Where does this come into the discussion??? I think I’ve shown the greatest devotion to my country that I can as a civilian. Obviously, there are some people who go above and beyond the call of duty for their country (God bless them), but I’ve never been anything other than a loyal American. I can’t possibly imagine living anywhere else except possibly Israel, but that country too has been strongly influenced by American political philosophies. Posted by: Warped Reality at June 19, 2011 1:04 AM
Comment #324666

Conservativethinker-

Tell me SD, what is a reasonable period of time for a law abiding citizen to arm themselves? The law says dealers can get and FBI profile on a person at the time of purchase. So, in your liberal socialist mind, this law is no good and we should have a law that meets your standards. Then you go on to say, “I think that’s enough gun control”, which makes you a liar, because you go on the make more demands. What is lethal capacity? Is this another one of YOUR demands on what is lethal? A couple of weeks will not satisfy the socialist. Nothing short of confiscation will satisfy your side of the isle. What constitutes an “assault weapon”? SD, since you have no military experience, I would expect that you have no idea what you are talking about when you use the term “assault weapons”. Some socialists have tried to include semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns as assault weapons. In fact, a few years ago when John Kerry was showing his pro-gun stance to the NRA members by going hunting, the very shotgun he was using had been listed by Kerry as an assault weapon. Of course, this is just liberal socialist double standards, as usual…

I’m not going to speak as to what John Kerry believes, but I will tell you what I believe: Lethal capacity is ridiculously simple.

I mean, try a good old fashioned shotgun, for one thing. Somebody takes a shot in the chest or gut from that, unprotected, they’re not going to be getting back up, even if they live. Or a standard pistol or rifle.

The distinguishing elements of the assault weapons involve various features like extended magazines, bayonet mounts, folding stocks, pistol grips, and threading for flash suppressors.

You know, all the essential features for home defense. Oh, I must be such a socialist to think that the average person shouldn’t have a bayonet mount on their rifle. And really, if a person can’t put a flash suppressor on their rifle, then we must be denying them their right to bear arms. I mean, it’s right there in the constitution: Thou shalt not ban flash suppressors!

It’s just so funny that I can tell you outright what I believe, and your response is a rant on how socialists will stop at nothing to get all the guns.

I am a liberal capitalist. I keep telling you this, and you keep on taking flights of imagination based on some rather silly and hasty generalizations.

SD, of course, this was before America found out it was obama’s people who were supplying the guns to Mexico… Since you support obama and his policies, I am assuming you also support this proposal. Which also makes you a liar again, when you say you support the second ammendment.

Oh, that’s right, he’s just cackling in his evil lair.

Give me a break. Such a treaty would give Obama the authority to put some real screws to the guys smuggling the guns. But noooo. That wouldn’t do. It must be an attack by the evil mastermind on your second amendment rights.

As for the comment about the Whale Wars thing? I think it’s a sorry mess on both sides, but you never bothered to ask me, you just went ahead and assumed what I believed on a subject.

But really, what do you think about that political commercial at that link? I think a lot of jaws got dropped by that one, and not in a good way.

I think your arguments are pretty tone deaf. You think finding creative ways to call me stupid, diminished of capacity is going to bring a road to Damascus moment to me and others?

Let me let you in on a little secret. I didn’t get into this because I wanted to be safe from being insulted. There were then, and are now serious policy problems that your party is helping to bring about and perpetuate. What first drew me into blogging was seeing all the ridiculously obvious problems with the Iraq war, but getting told again and again by the Bush Administration that everything was all right.

But it wasn’t. The insurgency was strengthening. Saddam Hussein remained free much of that year.

The problems kept popping up, and the Bush Administration kept on doing dumb things, like disbanding the army and the police force, or leaving soldiers going around in unarmored vehicles.

I’ve been saying what I’ve said for years, because it seems like the Republican Party is more interested in defending itself and it’s power politically, than it is in solving the problems that face us on a national level, and in our domestic and foreign policy. I started blogging because I want real, practical improvements in American policy, and I’m willing to speak out and advocate until things get done right in Washington for once.

So you go on, and you chase your delusions about what Democrats are taught. I don’t remember that school you’re imagining. I remember having a vice principal in Elementary School who sang that Lee Greenwood song. Have to admit he had a nice singing voice. I cheered the fall of the Berlin wall and the Soviet Union. I admired the patriots and was taught to do so.

I didn’t learn how to hate America. I learned to see its history in perspective, to understand that a lot changed between when this country was founded, and what it is today.

But hey, you didn’t ask, you just assumed you knew.

Yeah, that seems to be the pattern.

I believe in this country, and I believe in capitalism. I tell you these things every time, and I’ll tell you them a thousand times again. If you listen, fine. If you don’t, then I will have at least saved some folks from your ignorant assumptions about my background.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 19, 2011 1:10 AM
Comment #324667

“You know hardly anything about my personal life.”

Sorry WR, but you have managed to tell us all about yourself over the years. I’m surprised you would use that kind of language on WB…

As I have said before; the older you become, the more hardline liberal you become.

“You don’t have a clue what capitalism is then. Capitalism is inseparable from a liberal society, which is a society that respects every person’s inherent individual liberty. Generally, this liberty can be thought of as the right to do whatever one pleases with one’s own resources so long as one doesn’t violate anyone else’s liberty.”

I have almost 70 years of experience living and working under capitalism. What experience do you have? I can remember a time when the government had not invaded our “liberties” as we see today. I would suggest you gain a little life experience before you begin to tell us about life.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 19, 2011 8:09 AM
Comment #324669

warped

“Capitalism is inseparable from a liberal society, which is a society that respects every person’s inherent individual liberty. Generally, this liberty can be thought of as the right to do whatever one pleases with one’s own resources so long as one doesn’t violate anyone else’s liberty.”

this would be classic liberalism. modern day liberals tend to be progressives, and don’t fit the classic definition of liberalism. actually libertarians are a much closer fit to the classic definition.

stephen


“The distinguishing elements of the assault weapons involve various features like extended magazines, bayonet mounts, folding stocks, pistol grips, and threading for flash suppressors.”


i told you once, no such thing as an “assault weapon”. assault rifle yes, but it must have select fire capability to be an assault rifle. the civilian version is a semi-automatic gas operated rifle. that is the correct term. doesn’t sound as evil, now does it.

bayonet lug? when has anyone ever fixed a bayonet before commiting a crime. why do you have a problem with threaded barrels? in fact the barrel of a rifle sold in the civilian market MUST BE a minimum of 16 inches. if unscrewing the flash supressor, or muzzle break would make the barrel length less than 16 inches it cannot be threaded on. it must be permanently affixed. i could go on here but i won’t.

“Lethal capacity is ridiculously simple.”

really…….. than explaine it to me.

it’s clear to me you don’t truely understand the actual purpose of the second amendment. it is to protect the const. from all threats foreign or domestic. it is this very reason any law abiding civilian should be able to own and AR15, AK47, or any other rifle suitable for fighting.

Posted by: dbs at June 19, 2011 9:35 AM
Comment #324676

dbs-
I know what its purpose is. There was a day that having that rifle mean food for your family, and a defense for you country, in case your nation was invaded, and troops were weeks or months away.

Part of the main reason why today’s state militias seem such an afterthought is that the world’s changed. Transportation, surveillance, and communication operate differently now, two of them pretty much at lightspeed.

The question is, does the average person really need an offensive, military style weapon to suit their purposes? The answer will be no, for the most part.

As for Lethal capacity? Well, maybe I should say something that can kill you dead, or put you down if it hits you square.

It just seems to me sometimes that people are encouraging this inordinate, sometimes insane fear of the government, and that is contributing to unrest and breaches of the peace. I don’t like that for some, the subject of secession has come up as a serious notion once again. It’s funny that many people who are calling themselves Republicans, are convincing themselves to take the opposite position to that of Abraham Lincoln. For years, the notion was that there was something more important than just yourself or your family, or your state, that community mattered, your country mattered.

I believe, at the end of the day that once people have the capacity to defend themselves with lethal force, everything else is just overkill, and doesn’t contribute to the good of the community.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 19, 2011 12:17 PM
Comment #324677
this would be classic liberalism. modern day liberals tend to be progressives, and don’t fit the classic definition of liberalism. actually libertarians are a much closer fit to the classic definition.

I don’t consider myself a progressive (for this very reason). I understand there is a gap between modern progressivism and classical liberalism, but it isn’t as large as the chasm between conservatism and classical liberalism. Although I don’t adhere to all libertarian viewpoints, I have a lot more respect for libertarians than I do for most other ideologies.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 19, 2011 1:08 PM
Comment #324678

Stephen, You just named every gun on the market including pellet pistol for lethal capacity. Even a pellet pistol will kill if it hits you in the right spot.

Posted by: KAP at June 19, 2011 1:45 PM
Comment #324679

Comment #324678

Stephen, You just named every gun on the market including pellet pistol for lethal capacity. Even a pellet pistol will kill if it hits you in the right spot.

Posted by: KAP at June 19, 2011 01:45 PM

You are correct KAP. The air rifle was invented in the 1700’s and was used as early was used by the military as sniper rifles. Here is some good reading on the pellet or air rifle:

http://www.ehow.com/about_6505707_history-pellet-gun.html

I commented that Stephen had no idea what he was talking about when calling modern rifles and pistols assault weapons. And he still doesn’t; but it just irks SD to be told he don’t know anything, so he will spend days arguing and trying to prove his point.

Stephen, you try to tell us you are not a liberal socialist bent on destroying America’s 2nd Amendment rights; but you defend politicians who are trying to do this. So what are we to think? You don’t want to talk about what Kerry believes and yet you defend his and obama’s beliefs, which are the same.

“The distinguishing elements of the assault weapons involve various features like extended magazines, bayonet mounts, folding stocks, pistol grips, and threading for flash suppressors.”

This statement is complete BS and shows your complete ignorance on the subject. This, Stephen, is the true definition of an assault weapon:

“Definitions

A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it’s capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states.”

“Summary
Military-style semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons) do not differ materially from non-military style semi-automatic firearms (one bullet is fired for each pull of the trigger) and are no more powerful than other semi-automatic weapons. Further, a bullet fired from a semi-automatic weapon is no more powerful than one of the same caliber fired from a corresponding non-semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun. In fact most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles. For example, the AR-15 (a semi-automatic version of the U.S. military’s rifle, M-16), is a .223 caliber rifle. Rifles of this caliber, when used for hunting, are generally used on small game rather than deer. A smaller caliber bullet is more likely to wound the animal (and allow it to escape and suffer a slow death) than the more powerful .24 to .30 caliber bullets normally used in deer hunting rifles (see this hunting rifle ammunition chart).
Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides). However a higher percentage are used in police homicides, roughly ten percent. (There has been no consistent trend in this rate from 1978 through 1996.) Between 1992 and 1996 less than 4% of mass murders, committed with guns, involved assault weapons. (Our deadliest mass murders have either involved arson or bombs.)
There are close to 4 million assault weapons in the U.S., which amounts to roughly 1.7% of the total gun stock.
If assault weapons are so rarely used in crime, why all the hoopla when certain military-style-semi-automatic weapons were banned by the Crime Control Act of 1994? A Washington Post editorial (September 15, 1994) summed it up best:
No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

The assault weapons ban of 1994 was based on false information of what an assault weapon really is; and it was upon this false information that democats and Clinton signed the ban. As I said before, the shotgun Kerry was using in hi photo opt was a banned gun under the democrat ban.

“Such a treaty would give Obama the authority to put some real screws to the guys smuggling the guns. But noooo. That wouldn’t do. It must be an attack by the evil mastermind on your second amendment rights.”

Stephen, what part of obama’s justice department and the ATF, supplying the guns to the cartel don’t you understand? Why would you want to give obama the authority to impose laws on Americans for violations he was responsible for committing?

“But really, what do you think about that political commercial at that link?”

Nothing; I don’t have any opinion of the commercial one way or another,,,

“What first drew me into blogging was seeing all the ridiculously obvious problems with the Iraq war, but getting told again and again by the Bush Administration that everything was all right.”

Blah, blah, blah; here we go, blaming Bush again.

“I believe in this country, and I believe in capitalism. I tell you these things every time, and I’ll tell you them a thousand times again. If you listen, fine. If you don’t, then I will have at least saved some folks from your ignorant assumptions about my background.”

See Stephen, you say one thing, but you do another. Michelle obamba said she was never proud of America until her husband was elected; then we have obama’s anti-American friends who have not only verbally attacked America, but in the case of William Ayres, was guilty of revolution:

http://www.jeffhead.com/obamacircle.htm

And you support obama; so I’m having some problems with your patriotism…

“dbs-
I know what its purpose is. There was a day that having that rifle mean food for your family, and a defense for you country, in case your nation was invaded, and troops were weeks or months away.”

Stephen, I don’t know about your part of the country, but in mine deer hunting is very popular. And guess what, it puts meat in the freezer. Stephen, why do you suppose CCW is so popular? Perhaps Americans want to be able to protect their families. Now you may stand back and let some drug head rob and possibly rape your wife or daughter, while talking them to death; but I would put a bullet through their head in a heartbeat.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 19, 2011 3:12 PM
Comment #324681

CT, Your right about the air pistols, I had one and put a pellet through a wall and the aluminum outer skin of a mobile home I once owned and it even dented the propane tank outside, I was lucky that tank didn’nt blow needless to say I never tried that again.

Posted by: KAP at June 19, 2011 3:31 PM
Comment #324684

As far as I know, America is the only nation who has written in their laws, the right of citizens to own fire arms. I believe the Swiss have a standing militia where all men are armed and perhaps Israel. WR and SD want to treat threats of disarming Americans as nothing more than conspiracy theories; but when we have actual peace treaties being presented in the UN that controls and supersedes the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in America, I call it more than a theory. While WR and SD continue to defend the indefensible, groups like the NRA keep American gun owners up to date. We know who the enemy is, and obama is no supporter of 2nd Amendments rights, neither is Clinton, Kerry, Schumer, or many others.

Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom have all given up their rights to protect themselves and their families.

As per SD original post: it is no accident that the obama administration wants to crack down on American’s 2nd Amendment rights because illegal guns are making it to the Mexican cartel; yet at the same time it was the obama administration who was guilty of putting the guns in their hands.

I’ll be glad when his sorry ass is kicked out of the WH. He is an embarrassment.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 19, 2011 3:47 PM
Comment #324685

WR writes; “a liberal society…is a society that respects every person’s inherent individual liberty. Generally, this liberty can be thought of as the right to do whatever one pleases with one’s own resources so long as one doesn’t violate anyone else’s liberty.”

I know it’s easy to confuse “liberty” with “liberal” but they don’t mean the same thing. What you described is hardly modern liberalism. And, you are also confusing “liberty” with constitutional “rights”. It would be good for your writing WR, if you used these terms correctly.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 19, 2011 3:56 PM
Comment #324689

RF, do you remember how the democrats hate to be identified with the southern democrats, who belong to the Klan, voted against civil rights, and supported slavery. They love to say the democrats of the pre-Johnson era were actually republicans and the republicans of the pre-Johnson era were actually democrats? Well now they are playing the same word games with liberal, libertarian, and progressive. They would have us believe they are not liberals, but rather libertarians. The Bible says, a “ leopard can’t change his spots, or an Ethiopian his color”.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 19, 2011 4:14 PM
Comment #324695

Of course you are correct Conservativethinker when you wrote; “…they are playing the same word games with liberal, libertarian, and progressive.”

They don’t change their political philosophy, they merely camouflage it to appear, to the unwary, to be something else. I don’t believe that SD is a capitalist or that WR is a libertarian. Does anyone who has read their writings believe that?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 19, 2011 4:40 PM
Comment #324698
As far as I know, America is the only nation who has written in their laws, the right of citizens to own fire arms.

This partly why I’m so proud to be an American. The second amendment basically guarantees us the right to overthrow our government if it ever becomes too oppressive. The casus belli of the battle of Concord was the fact that Americans were hoarding arms in the countryside around Boston. The founders remembered this, which is why they included it in the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 19, 2011 5:49 PM
Comment #324699

This is why I’m so proud

Why can’t I get my grammar straight today?

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 19, 2011 6:02 PM
Comment #324700

stephen

“I know what its purpose is. There was a day that having that rifle mean food for your family, and a defense for you country, in case your nation was invaded, and troops were weeks or months away.”

it also gives the citizens the ability to keep thier own gov’t in check. the first thing any gov’t does when it wants unchecked power over its citizens is to disarm them. enemies of the people aren’t always outsiders.

Posted by: dbs at June 19, 2011 6:24 PM
Comment #324701

KAP-
You have to be extraordinarily lucky with a pellet pistol or rifle.

What is it with folks here? Can’t you accept that I’m not itching to get the standard weapons on the market off the market? I would like to think the world was a good enough place where you wouldn’t need a weapon to defend yourself. At the same time, I’m not so idealistic about guns that I don’t think that society has an interest in keeping the firepower of these weapons moderated.

But there doesn’t seem to be any taste for moderation here, it’s all the blind pursuit of this political goal, regardless of what the collateral casualties are.

And really, the irony of these arguments, which say that the weapons bans do little(an argument I’ll concede has some merit), is that if you’re taking seriously that this is a bad thing, then it’s an argument for stronger gun laws, not weaker. But if it’s actually ineffectual, then what’s the point of being mad about it?

If it’s true, then the person at home defending themselves has just as much fire power to do so, and the person hunting the deer out there isn’t at a disadvantage. If these are mostly just cosmetic features, and the law is easily gotten around, the smart thing to do politically is to let it happen, then cry and moan about how restrictive it is, so that gun laws are kept frozen in place.

Close up the gun show loopholes. Take the low hanging fruit of gun control advocates away, so that what’s left is a harder row for them to hoe. Resisting them on small, sensible stuff is just asking for some provocating incident to come along and force even tougher reforms.

This statement is complete BS and shows your complete ignorance on the subject. This, Stephen, is the true definition of an assault weapon:

I think that’s the definition of an assault rifle. We were talking about the assault weapons ban, so I was basically rattling off the features that I read about in the articles about the ban itself. Pardon me for citing relevant information rather than distracting readers with another class of more regulated weaponry.

Stephen, what part of obama’s justice department and the ATF, supplying the guns to the cartel don’t you understand?

What part of not stopping straw buyers from transporting their weapons did you not understand?

The weapons were coming from the gun stores and the gun shows. It wasn’t as if the Federal government was itself selling the weapons.

Why would you want to give obama the authority to impose laws on Americans for violations he was responsible for committing?

If your argument held any actual water, if this wasn’t the botched investigation it actually is, then the Watergate Break-in would provide a reason to abolish breaking and entering as a crime.

You don’t degrade the laws because the current officeholder failed to uphold their end of the deal. You improve the law, regardless of who is in charge, and you push for better people. You already have your idea of that, so that’s what you should do.

“But really, what do you think about that political commercial at that link?” Nothing; I don’t have any opinion of the commercial one way or another

Really. Okay, let me describe this for those who didn’t bother to click to the link. In this political commercial, a Democratic Congressional Candidate’s face is superimposed with red eyes over the face of a pole-dancing white woman in booty shorts, who is groped and fondled by a pair of central casting gangsta rap thugs who rap “give us your cash b****.”

And you have absolutely no opinion of this. You’re just completely neutral on what has to be, on the merits, one of the most tasteless political ads in recent American history.

“What first drew me into blogging was seeing all the ridiculously obvious problems with the Iraq war, but getting told again and again by the Bush Administration that everything was all right.” Blah, blah, blah; here we go, blaming Bush again.

Why not? Is there some quota I’ve gone over, where an otherwise provable charge of mine cannot be claimed true? He has a lot to answer for, and much of the first part of my Blogging career was devoted to getting him and the other Republicans to answer for it.

But instead of doing that, your people have found every excuse not to change policy, not to resolve the problems, the very real problems, that got you into this mess.

Besides, I was talking about my motivations. Do I not get to say that Bush made a lot of decisions that didn’t work out, and his failure to correct them, lead me to believe that he had to be pressured to do better, or be replaced? Am I to censor myself to please you, to not bruise your tender sensibilities about Bush?

If he is responsible for a mistake, I will recall that fact when I argue things. If that annoys you, I won’t lose much sleep.

See Stephen, you say one thing, but you do another. Michelle obamba said she was never proud of America until her husband was elected; then we have obama’s anti-American friends who have not only verbally attacked America, but in the case of William Ayres, was guilty of revolution: http://www.jeffhead.com/obamacircle.htm And you support obama; so I’m having some problems with your patriotism…

In my opinion, so much of the patriotism displayed on the right is superficial. People wave their flags until they’re ragged, but go after others for burning them. They’re both flag desecrators, the flag-wavers if they wave a flag that shows so much wear, rather than take it down, and retire it properly, and put up a new one.

Folks talk about loving their country, but they don’t look out for its welfare, keep the roads in good repair, the economy stable. They aid and abet the people making things more volatile, let the polluters ravage our environment and inflict their climate change.

Oh yeah, I know, you consider that a hoax. Ninety percent of all climate scientists buy the theory, but they must all be commies in on it.

You say one thing, that you love this country, but your people have done quite another thing, with rules, regulations and attitudes that have helped shred our nation’s greatness to tatters.

I can’t know what’s in your heart, but you’re waving a tattered flag in my faces and telling me you love our country more than me.

I think Michelle Obama is prouder than she was before, proud to see how expectations we once all had proved wrong. I had the notion myself that this country wouldn’t be ready for a black president for quite a while, decades down the line, all the while talk about what was possible just ringing hollow.

Until now. So, I was proud of my country before, for all the things we’ve advanced past in terms of racism, sexism, and prejudice and all that, but now I’m very proud of my country.

Now you may stand back and let some drug head rob and possibly rape your wife or daughter, while talking them to death; but I would put a bullet through their head in a heartbeat.

Yeah, this hypothetical version of me is such a wimp!

You’ve got this central casting wimp in mind. The real me was a football player for much of his high-school and junior highschool career, a nose tackle who was capable of playing in August and September heat. The real me isn’t a martial arts expert by any stretch of the imagination, but has some training as to how to punch, kick, and otherwise disable an opponent. I’ve never really lost any fight I’ve been in, even when I was up against more than one person.

Get a weapon in my hand, and I know how to swing it, and what to swing it at. I wouldn’t be picky. If I had a blunt object, the head, throat, shins and kneecaps would be my first picks. I’d have no scruples about sneaking up on them, after all, they didn’t send any advanced warning they’d be showing up.

And if I had a gun? My family doesn’t have one, but the other men in my family are crack shots, and in my own home, I wouldn’t have much room to miss.

Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom have all given up their rights to protect themselves and their families.

Australia and UK have relatively few gun deaths, and Canada has gun licensing which statistically speaking, Canadians take great advantage of. But hey, they must be slaughterhouses because they don’t follow the instructions from the NRA to the letter.

Well now they are playing the same word games with liberal, libertarian, and progressive. They would have us believe they are not liberals, but rather libertarians. The Bible says, a “ leopard can’t change his spots, or an Ethiopian his color”.

Now you’re in denial about your own history.

The Southern Strategy, the appeal to discontented Southern Democrats, is a matter of historical record. So are the political associations of a number of former Democrats who are now Republicans. This includes a number of prominent Southern Republicans, including Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Richard Shelby and Sonny Perdue.

What basically happened was a Demographic shift. Unfortunately, rather than keeping the North, which had long been a Republican stronghold, Republicans have put most of their eggs in one basket, and worse yet, more or less had to change their politics to suit the sensibilities of the former Southern Democrats they courted.

dbs-
Our government can call in air strikes and roll in tanks on you. No, your first line of defense is the First Amendment. When the right to speak your mind, to assemble peacefully, to publish by way of the press is taken away, then guns will offer you little solace. It might give some people pause, but States will always command more firepower than their citizens.

If you can’t free your mind, then you really aren’t in any shape to free anything else, even if you have the best guns.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 19, 2011 8:10 PM
Comment #324702

Stephen, If you use the standard target pellet, yes. There are other types of pellets that are lethal. As I said in # 324681 I did pet a pellet through a Mobile Home wall and skin which are paneling, insullation and an aluminum skin approx 1 1/2 to 2in thick and dented a propane tank. Also the wall was 40ft away. I think a body is a bit more fragile then a Mobile Home wall.

Posted by: KAP at June 19, 2011 8:40 PM
Comment #324703

By the way that was with the standard target pellet.

Posted by: KAP at June 19, 2011 8:42 PM
Comment #324704

Stephen, The government must have all the military on their side for them to do what you say. If the military sides with the people and not with a tyranical government then the government has problems and the government will eventualy fall.

Posted by: KAP at June 19, 2011 9:04 PM
Comment #324706

“What is it with folks here? Can’t you accept that I’m not itching to get the standard weapons on the market off the market? I would like to think the world was a good enough place where you wouldn’t need a weapon to defend yourself. At the same time, I’m not so idealistic about guns that I don’t think that society has an interest in keeping the firepower of these weapons moderated.”

Stephen, why don’t you explain to us standard and non-standard weapons are? Sorry Stephen, but we don’t live in that make believe panacea world of yours.

“But there doesn’t seem to be any taste for moderation here, it’s all the blind pursuit of this political goal, regardless of what the collateral casualties are.”

We don’t want moderation; we want you socialist out of our lives. Moderation to a socialist simply means getting your foot in the door, so you can demand more moderation…

What are collateral casualties? You must have some facts on this, or are you just making stuff up again?

“Close up the gun show loopholes. Take the low hanging fruit of gun control advocates away, so that what’s left is a harder row for them to hoe. Resisting them on small, sensible stuff is just asking for some provocating incident to come along and force even tougher reforms.”

Perhaps Mr. Daugherty could get around the liberal talking points and actually explain what the loop holes of gun shows really are. The last time I bought a gun at a gun show, I went through the same FBI background check as I did when I bought a pistol at the Bass Pro Shop. So what are the loopholes Stephen?

“I think that’s the definition of an assault rifle. We were talking about the assault weapons ban, so I was basically rattling off the features that I read about in the articles about the ban itself. Pardon me for citing relevant information rather than distracting readers with another class of more regulated weaponry.”

So Stephen, you base your argument about on assault gun bans on something you don’t even believe, simply for the case of arguing. If you had military experience, you would have known the definition of an assault weapon is one that can be select fired, semi or full auto. The ignorance of the democrats who cooked up the 1994 Clinton ban, was based on their interpretation of an assault weapon, even though they didn’t know what they were talking about either. Assault weapons have been regulated for many years and require a class 3 license to own one. If you read the article, you would have known these are only look alike weapons. By the way Stephen, there are assault look-alike pellet rifles; do you want to ban them too?

“What part of not stopping straw buyers from transporting their weapons did you not understand?
The weapons were coming from the gun stores and the gun shows. It wasn’t as if the Federal government was itself selling the weapons.”

Tell me Stephen; were the gun shops at fault? If they were, were the owners arrested? The feds knew everything that was going on and failed to stop the guns from going to the cartel. So now you’re defending the feds for not doing their job? You better let someone know the feds were in the right because they are getting ready to fire the head of the ATF. If they weren’t at fault, why is he being fired?

“You don’t degrade the laws because the current officeholder failed to uphold their end of the deal. You improve the law, regardless of who is in charge, and you push for better people. You already have your idea of that, so that’s what you should do.”

And you don’t make the ownership of firearms illegal because the crooks break he law and the feds let them get by with it.

“Really. Okay, let me describe this for those who didn’t bother to click to the link. In this political commercial, a Democratic Congressional Candidate’s face is superimposed with red eyes over the face of a pole-dancing white woman in booty shorts, who is groped and fondled by a pair of central casting gangsta rap thugs who rap “give us your cash b****.”
And you have absolutely no opinion of this. You’re just completely neutral on what has to be, on the merits, one of the most tasteless political ads in recent American history.”

And let me make this perfectly clear Stephen, I don’t give a rat’s behind about any commercial. Did you have a problem with the liberal socialist democrat commercial of Paul Ryan throwing an old lady off a cliff? I didn’t think so…

“I think Michelle Obama is prouder than she was before, proud to see how expectations we once all had proved wrong. I had the notion myself that this country wouldn’t be ready for a black president for quite a while, decades down the line, all the while talk about what was possible just ringing hollow.”

Well, we will see if she is still proud when the voters send his black behind back to Chicago…I’ll tell you what obama did for the black man; it will be a cold day in Hades when the American people vote for another black, and obama can be thanked for that. I think his lazy condescending behind has made people think twice about our non-racial need to vote for another one, although I would vote for Cain in a heartbeat. But there are racist blacks and then there are American patriotic blacks. Cain is the latter.

“Australia and UK have relatively few gun deaths, and Canada has gun licensing which statistically speaking, Canadians take great advantage of. But hey, they must be slaughterhouses because they don’t follow the instructions from the NRA to the letter.”

As usual Stephen, you are full of crap:

OBSERVABLE FACT AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA

• Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%.
• Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%.
• Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44%. (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
• In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%!
• The steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.
• The steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.
• There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly.
• At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said “self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm”.
• From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia have averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
• The ban has destroyed Australia’s standings in some international sport shooting competitions.
• The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has increased by 200% in response to the ban and in an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
• Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain why no improvement in “safety” has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in “ridding society of guns”. Their response has been to “wait longer”.

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html

Stephen you play the same games as the liberal socialist gun control web sites; you play word games. Instead of talking about crimes committed with guns, why don’t we talk about crime?

“On a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, “theirs is worse than ours.” The response was swift and sharp. “Have a Nice Daydream,” The Mirror, a London daily, shot back, reporting: “Britain reacted with fury and disbelief last night to claims by American newsmen that crime and violence are worse here than in the US.” But sandwiched between the article’s battery of official denials — “totally misleading,” “a huge over-simplification,” “astounding and outrageous” — and a compilation of lurid crimes from “the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun,” The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, “Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes.”
In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year’s Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.”

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome

Stephen, instead of quoting liberal talking points, why don’t you do research? Perhaps you can get some facts from this:

“Gun Control: An Overview of the Issues
Ten Myths vs. Reality
Gun control is an issue surrounded by (some would say submerged in) myth and misunderstanding. We present here ten myths that are most frequently raised … and, from our perspective, most commonly misunderstood.
Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime. A review of the academic literature shows that there is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of crime in the United States. Criminologists Gary Kleck and E. Britt Patterson reported in 1993 their finding that gun ownership had no significant effect on the rates of murder, assault, robbery, or rape in the U.S. Between 1973 and 1992, the rate of gun ownership in the U.S. increased by 45 percent (from 610 guns per 1,000 people to 887). The homicide rate during that period fell by nearly 10 percent (from 9.4 homicides per 100,000 people to 8.5).
Myth No. 2: Gun control laws reduce crime. Firearms have been regulated with increasing stringency in the United States for most of the past thirty years. Nevertheless, the number of firearms in private hands has increased continuously by many millions per year; handguns have become an increasing proportion of privately owned firearms; and rates of crime, violent crime, and homicide have shown no relationship to the passage or enforcement of gun laws. In their 1993 research, Kleck and Patterson analyze the impact of 19 gun control measures on six categories of violence. In ninety of the resulting 102 relationships, they found no significant correlation between gun laws and violence.
Myth No. 3: Gun control laws stop friends from killing friends. Most murderers and most victims of homicide have criminal records. They are likely to have other criminals as friends and acquaintances. So while it is true that in many cases of homicide the offender and victim are known to each other, it isnot true that these “friends killing friends” are the plain ordinary folks often portrayed in anti-gun propaganda. “It is not a slander on the few truly innocent and highly sensationalized victims,” writes Dr. Edgar A. Suter and his colleagues, “to note that the overwhelming predominance of homicide victims’ are as predatory and socially aberrant as the perpetrators of homicide.” Indeed, according to City of Chicago data, the largest and fastest-growing category of relationship between killer and victim is “non-relative, non-friend acquaintance.”
Myth No. 4: Gun control laws keep criminals from obtaining guns. In surveys of prisoners, a majority report that they had owned a handgun prior to their imprisonment. But only 7 percent of criminals’ handguns are obtained from legitimate retail sources. Three-fourths of felons surveyed report they would have no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released, despite legal prohibitions against firearms ownership by convicted felons.
Myth No. 5: Required waiting periods would prevent some of the most vicious crimes. The Brady waiting period law imposes waiting periods on handguns—the least-deadly type of firearm—while imposing no such restriction on much more deadly, substitutable weapons such as rifles or shotguns. While handguns are preferred by criminals because of their portability and concealability, not every criminal who planned to use a handgun will abandon his criminal plans when confronted by a waiting period. Indeed, for reasons discussed in more detail below (see “Why Waiting Periods Fail”), it is entirely possible that waiting period laws could increase the number of both killings and nondeadly woundings.
Myth No. 6: Guns don’t work as self-protection against criminals. In fact, guns are about as valuable to civilians as they are to police officers, and for the same reason. According to criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, every year adults use guns for protective purposes 2.5 million times. As many as 65 lives are protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. Each year, potential victims kill between 2,000 and 3,000 criminals; they wound an additional 9,000 to 17,000.
Moreover, mishaps are rare. Private citizens mistakenly kill innocent people only thirty times a year, compared with about 330 mistaken killings by police. Criminals succeed in taking a gun away from an armed victim less than 1 percent of the time. The real utility of defensive firearms, moreover, must surely be far greater, and would be measured not by how many people were shot or even how often a gun was fired, but rather by the deterrent effects of a civilian being armed.
Myth No. 7: Guns aren’t needed as self-protection. About 83 percent of the population will be victims of violent crime at some point in their lives, and in any given year serious crime touches 25 percent of all households. The odds are not likely to improve; there is only one police officer on patrol for every 3,300 people. And the courts repeatedly have ruled that government has at most a limited duty to protect individual citizens from crime.
An illustrative case is Warren v. District of Columbia, in which three rape victims sued the city under the following facts: Two of the victims were upstairs when they heard the other being attacked by men who had broken in downstairs. From an upstairs telephone, the two roommates made several calls to the police. Half an hour passed and their roommate’s screams ceased; they assumed the police must have arrived. In fact, however, their calls had been lost in the shuffle while the roommate was being beaten into silent acquiescence. When her roommates went downstairs to see to her, as the court’s opinion describes it, “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands” of their attackers.
Having set out these facts, the District of Columbia’s highest court nevertheless exonerated the District and its police, noting that it is
a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.
Myth No. 8: Gun control laws are especially needed to prevent the purchase of Saturday Night Specials and “assault weapons.”Inexpensive handguns are involved in only 1 to 3 percent of violent crimes; criminals generally prefer larger caliber and more expensive handguns. Moreover, in the past fifty years no civilian has ever used a legally owned machine gun in a violent crime. And despite their repeated use by drug dealers on television and movies, no Uzi has ever been used to kill a police officer in the United States. Even some gun control advocates concede that so-called assault weapons play a minor role in violent crime. In 1991, 1992, and 1993 combined, there were more than 2,500 criminal homicides in the City of Chicago—only three of which were perpetrated with a true, military-style, “assault weapon.”
Myth No. 9: Gun control laws are especially needed to prevent gun accidents in the home. “Gun-control advocates have sought to create the impression that firearm accidents involving children are a large and growing problem,” writes the Independence Institute’s David Kopel. “Many people mistakenly conclude that children die frequently in gun accidents and that sharp restrictions on gun ownership are necessary to address the problem.” In fact, however, the number of gun accidents involving both children and adults has fallen dramatically.
In 1970, 2,406 Americans died from firearms accidents. By 1991, that number had fallen to 1,441—even as the number of guns increased dramatically. Between 1970 and 1991, the annual rate of fatal gun accidents was cut in half, from 1.2 to 0.6 per 100,000 Americans. The death rate from firearms accidents is lower than that from accidental drowning (1.6 per 100,000 in 1991), inhalation and ingestion of foreign objects (1.3), and complications from medical procedures (1.0).
Myth No. 10: Gun ownership is not a constitutional right.The Second Amendment reflects the founders’ belief that an armed citizenry (called the general militia ) was a necessary precaution against tyranny by our own government and its army. The idea that government has a constitutional right to disarm the general citizenry is totally foreign to the intent of the Constitutional framers. Samuel Adams, for example, expressed in the Massachusetts convention his intention that “the said Constitution be never construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” David Kopel summarizes the legal scholarship on this issue:
In the field of legal scholarship, the primary question has been answered: the Second Amendment was plainly intended to guarantee a right of individuals to possess arms. The essential purpose of this guarantee was not to protect sporting uses of guns, but to facilitate resistance to criminal governments, which were seen as simply a larger case of resistance to individual criminals.

http://catb.org/~esr/guns/aiming.html

If you are really interested in the truth and not the liberal talking points, you might want to research the law and economics professor John R. Lott Jr. of Chicago U. and look at some of his research results.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 19, 2011 9:53 PM
Comment #324709

SD

“The weapons were coming from the gun stores and the gun shows. It wasn’t as if the Federal government was itself selling the weapons.”

Most of the straw buyers have been from dealers who were supposed to sell to the straw buyers per authority of ATF higher up. That is plain and simple support of the program. They were then allowed to walk the guns. That again was overt support of supplying guns to the drug cartels. That is our government in action.

More laws and stricter laws will only drive crime upward. One of the reasons we have a lot of the problems in this country today is that the federal government keeps passing more laws to fix something they broke in the first place. The additional laws only make the problem worse and they keep repeating themselves. Something to the effect of being insane. This is documented by historical fact.

Your definition and elucidations on “assault weapons” is straight from the liberal, leftist, socialist, progressive dictionary. They are the ones who decided that “assault weapons” even existed. Are you for stricter laws concerning my kitchen knives, baseball bats, and rope? More people are killed by alcohol every year than by guns. Why not outlaw alcohol in beverages? Turn the alcohol producing beverage plants into a fuel producing plant for internal combustion engines.

“People wave their flags until they’re ragged, but go after others for burning them.”

In the area of the country where I live, the wind gusts up 60 mph on a regular basis. The flags get tattered quite easily. The people in my community disperse of the flags according to the proper protocol. This may not happen in your community, what I described has happened in a number of communities that I know of all over the country.

That KOS KOOL-AID sure has a kick for liberal writers

Posted by: tom humes at June 19, 2011 10:59 PM
Comment #324712

CT,

Thank you for the link. I think this is the first time I’ve ever read something from the Heartland Institute that wasn’t pure propaganda.

I’m just curious, what’s your stance on the ‘34 NFA? Should we repeal it?

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 19, 2011 11:08 PM
Comment #324714

As usual, the purpose of the 34 NFA was tax revenue, under the guise of controlling full auto weapons. The government had no problem with Americans owning class 3 weapons, as long as the government collected it’s dues. The original thought was to get these weapons out of the hands of the gansters because they out-gunned local law enforcement. But 2 things can be noted: first the criminals did’nt care if the guns were legal or illegal (the same as today) and secondly, during this time in history most local cops had to pay for and supply their own weapons. As a result, the police were outgunned.

I have heard no plans to repeal the law, but I’m in favor of repealing any law that taxes the citizens simply for the purpose of raising revenue.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 19, 2011 11:44 PM
Comment #324715

These statistics have been known for many years, but as usual have failed to be covered by the MSM. Professor John R. Lott Jr. of Chicago University has done an indepth study of conceal carry weapons and crime.

http://www.mtssa.org/lott.htm

Haven’t you ever been curious why the cities and states with the highest crime rates also have the most strict gun laws.

It is also interesting to note, as I tld SD, the wording of the claims from the left for Australia, UK, and Canada. Gun crimes are down, but overall crime is up. So the average run of the mill thief, who can’t get a gun, just uses a knife. And the law abiding citizen who has been banned from owning a gun, cannot protect him/herself.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 19, 2011 11:58 PM
Comment #324716

KAP-
Tell that to the Libyans. Tell that to the Iraqis. Tell that to the Syrians. Guns don’t keep tyranny from taking over. In fact, they could end up being what future tyrants use to take over. In fact, it could be the very people who think their freedoms are endangered, who then react by taking the freedom of those whose political ideology they fear.

The right to bear arms is not the primary thing that guarantees freedom from tyranny. It’s having the space to both speak for and push your political opinion, rather than being under somebody’s boot, fuming, waiting for the opportunity to take over.

Shared government is what protects our freedoms, a government that doesn’t belong to a party, a religion, a region, or whatever else, but instead is held in common between different peoples, best able to act when compromises are made in the general interest.

When that shared government breaks down, when certain people try to take and keep things as they want it, against the protests of everybody else, then the guns stop being a protection, and start being the catalyst for the failure of the system.

Yes, preserve second amendment rights. But recognize that forgetting your first amendment rights, and not letting others use theirs will make the second amendment rights a joke. Guns don’t make a free people. The ability to find good information is what makes you free. The ability to find out what your government is doing, and alter what it’s doing through channels of feedback is what makes you free.

Guns only ensure that some can’t just cheat their way out of doing the right thing. They can’t free minds enslaved by bad information or deceptive appeals.

Conservative Thinker.
Haven’t we discussed intellectual property before? Quote. Set the link. If you can’t distill it down to a few points, if you feel you can’t do anything else but infodump, then you’re not likely confident in the strength of your ability to persuade, your confidence in your opinion aside.

Your argument amounts to: Liberal talking points are evil, so just concede the whole argument and start talking in Conservative talking points.

Sorry. Your debate isn’t going to get thrown for its own sake.

Australia had 260 murders in 2006. The UK less than 800. Canada was 605.

So, are they overwhelmed with all the gun violence? Not as compared to us.

You’re citing statistical evidence to make a point about the practical effects of a law.

I’m going to quit for tonight, there’s work to do tomorrow.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 20, 2011 1:34 AM
Comment #324717

KAP

“Stephen, The government must have all the military on their side for them to do what you say. If the military sides with the people and not with a tyranical government then the government has problems and the government will eventualy fall.”

thanks you saved me the trouble. you are 100% correct.

Posted by: dbs at June 20, 2011 7:28 AM
Comment #324718

warped

“I’m just curious, what’s your stance on the ‘34 NFA? Should we repeal it?”

yes. or at least revisit the issue. to the best of my knowlege miller was not represented in the supreme court case. the two bootleggers had disappeared by the time the case reached the supreme court, and the attorney for them chose not to spend the money to file the case. i believe the gov’t was unopposed, and easily won. keep in mind miller had won the earlier appelate court case, and the law struck down.

here’s a link about the the appeals case, and the judges decision.

http://www.hoboes.com/Politics/Firearms/miller/


CT

“As usual, the purpose of the 34 NFA was tax revenue, under the guise of controlling full auto weapons. The government had no problem with Americans owning class 3 weapons, as long as the government collected it’s dues.”


also keep in mind that with the repeal of prohibition there were lots of federal agents with nothing to do. rather than trim the heard, NFA was also a way to keep them busy, or justify thier continued employment.

Posted by: dbs at June 20, 2011 7:57 AM
Comment #324719

tom humes

“Your definition and elucidations on “assault weapons” is straight from the liberal, leftist, socialist, progressive dictionary. They are the ones who decided that “assault weapons” even existed. Are you for stricter laws concerning my kitchen knives,”


i think we should ban ALL ASSAULT KNIVES why does anyone need something that sharp? LOL!!!

Posted by: dbs at June 20, 2011 8:01 AM
Comment #324720

dbs-
So you favor the average person being able to purchase a machine gun?

What is it with Conservatives and the often unwarranted belief they have that letting forces loose like these is all for the best? One of the big reasons this law’s stood so long, despite the climate against gun control is the simple proposition that the first time somebody used a legally converted Automatic weapon to blow away a bunch of people, or commit an armed robbery, it would set back the gun rights movement decades.

Too many people on the right have this sense than any such chaos would simply be par for the course, the market working out its proper path, etc.

It doesn’t enter your mind, does it, that if your policies don’t maintain civil order, then folks will stop seeing gun rights as a means of self defense, and start seeing gun control as such.

Conservatives are getting too greedy about their agenda, trying to get too much at once with too little regard for the safety or welfare (in the good old fashioned sense of the term) of the American people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 20, 2011 8:12 AM
Comment #324722

CT

“I have heard no plans to repeal the law, but I’m in favor of repealing any law that taxes the citizens simply for the purpose of raising revenue.”


i think NFA has been rendered obsolete by the more current legislation. to the best of my knowlege the FBI hasn’t issued those tax stamps in many decades, and no longer will issue them. those who still posses them are grandfathered, but the weapons can no longer be transfered. another point to keep in mind was the cost at the time. the cost of the tax stamp was many times what the cost of the a gun was at that time. while it was also a revenue tool, it had the affect of making those guns to expensive to own. i believe the tax stamp was $250. compare that to the cost of an average gun. without checking prices i’de think it would have been in the $25 to $35 range.

Posted by: dbs at June 20, 2011 8:15 AM
Comment #324723

stephen


“So you favor the average person being able to purchase a machine gun?”


up until that law was passed it was quite legal, and the only ones missusing them were criminals. keep mind NFA didn’t ban those weapons it required owners to pay a $250 tax. why you fear law abidding citizens owning them i don’t understand. this is the same mindless fear the left has of people having CCWs. the lefts prediction that people would be shooting each other all the time over things like traffic disputes is overhyped nonsense. that goes for military style firearms too. the lefts doomsday predictions have not materialized. these are the same ones the left claimed would happen when the clinton ban expired. hasn’t happened.

Posted by: dbs at June 20, 2011 8:26 AM
Comment #324725

Just a brief comment on the actual issue in this thread: the “Fast and Furious” ATF operation. It wasn’t some nefarious government plot to sell weapons or to allow them to be exported to Mexican drug cartels. It was an operation modeling drug trafficking investigations in which low level operatives are allowed to operate and tracked to higher level organizational leadership in order to bust the network. It was stupid in the sense that we are not talking about some marijuana or cocaine reaching the streets but allowing killing instruments to reach killers. It would be like the DEA allowing known poisoned drugs to reach the streets in order to get to the higher level drug traffickers.

It should be remembered that this is the same organization that initiated the Waco standoff with a botched raid on the Branch Divinian’s compound.

Posted by: Rich at June 20, 2011 8:39 AM
Comment #324726

I guess if you get to use your think tank, I get to use Talking Points Memo.

The suspicious purchases were not, in and of themselves, illegal because there is no federal statute banning individuals from purchasing weapons for someone else. The only thing they can be brought up on is a so-called “papers” charge for lying on a federal form.

The charges that are brought against straw purchasers are extremely difficult to prove, former ATF agents have said.

In one 2008 case, a federal judge ruled that a case against a man who allegedly purchased over 400 weapons in 18 months (what he called “a rather breathtaking number”) couldn’t proceed because the jury shouldn’t be allowed to infer that he was trying to make a business out of it.

Yeah, those laws couldn’t be a problem, could they?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 20, 2011 8:54 AM
Comment #324727

“Conservative Thinker.
Haven’t we discussed intellectual property before?”

Stephen, unlike liberal blogs, conservatives love to pass along the info: it is not plagiarism to pass along info when encouraged to do so by email or by social networking i.e. facebook. So you write the way you want and I will write the way I want. I have discovered that liberals, except for WR, never read the links; they simply continue with liberal talking points.

Stephen continues to say, in response to years of statistical research:

“Your argument amounts to: Liberal talking points are evil, so just concede the whole argument and start talking in Conservative talking points.
Sorry. Your debate isn’t going to get thrown for its own sake.
Australia had 260 murders in 2006. The UK less than 800. Canada was 605.
So, are they overwhelmed with all the gun violence? Not as compared to us.
You’re citing statistical evidence to make a point about the practical effects of a law.”

Again, you love to quote the numbers, but you numbers are based strictly on gun violence, and gun violence would necessarily be down because the government of these countries has outlawed guns. But, overall crime is way up, and statistics are showing the reason is because the law-abiding citizen cannot own a gun for the purpose of protecting themselves. In other words, your numbers are based upon false material. Stephen, you are the first to comment on how the questions are asked on polling results and yet now you are willing to quote statistics based upon false information. There can be no doubt, when citizens are denied the right to protect themselves, crime increases; and when citizens have the right to defend themselves, crime decreases. Your numbers also fail to deal with crimes in ratio to population.

Perhaps you could provide some proof the gun laws remove the guns from criminal hands?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 20, 2011 10:06 AM
Comment #324728

“Conservatives are getting too greedy about their agenda, trying to get too much at once with too little regard for the safety or welfare (in the good old fashioned sense of the term) of the American people.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 20, 2011 08:12 AM

Get used to it Stephen, the TP conservatives have finally figured out that your libaeral socialist agenda only represents 20% of the American people and we are going to undo a lot of restrictions the left has placed on America. So don’t be surprised at what gets repealed…And our numbers are growing. Your cries of the sky is falling are just about burned out. Your sides lies about stealing SS from old people and kicking them out into the streets is also failing. SD, your scare tatics are not working anymore. The left never offers solutions, they simply attack those who stand against them.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 20, 2011 10:18 AM
Comment #324729

Let me add; case in point, Stephen’s whole argument for gun control is that if Americans are allowed to own guns, there will be mass murder in America. If we are allowed to have CCW, there will be shootouts in the streets. Scare tactics, based on nothing…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 20, 2011 10:22 AM
Comment #324730

Stephen, in answer to your comment #324716 reread comment #324704, the catch word is TYRANICAL, and also having the backing of the military. I’m not talking about Iran, Lybia, or Syria, in the U.S. Military we have this thing called obeying all LAWFUL ORDERS, our military dosen’t blindly obey it’s superiors like in the countries you mentioned in the U.S. Military we are allowed to question orders that are dubious or come from a TYRANT in CHIEF.

Posted by: KAP at June 20, 2011 11:09 AM
Comment #324731

SD

“Yeah, those laws couldn’t be a problem, could they?”

More SD rhetoric. It was not the law, it was the judge who decided what the jury could hear.

Posted by: tom humes at June 20, 2011 12:21 PM
Comment #324734


Speaking of the tea party, the chairman of the Florida tea party has denounced the GOP Ryan Medicare Plan as a political nightmare that will cause major Republican losses in 2012; which in turn will cause the GOP to blame the tea party.

A conservative mayor in Georgia is suing the states anti-illegal immigration bill, saying it will deprive businesses in his community of low wage workers. He says the bill is anti-American.

The Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot bypass the EPA in regulating greenhouse gas emissions. A loss for conservatives who want to regulate less and progressives who want to regulate more.

The Court also ruled in favor of WalMart. Another loss for American workers.

Nuclear regulators have allowed older nuclear power plants to remain operational by slowly but systematically weakening safety regulations.

Posted by: jlw at June 20, 2011 1:54 PM
Comment #324740

Conservativethinker-
I can always count on you to respond in a mature and consistent fashion. Well, at least the latter.

I want to protect this site. So should you. Quote and link. You’ll pass the information along just as easily. You should keep in mind that everybody has a scroll bar on the side of their screen, so if you haven’t gotten their attention, haven’t convinced them with your source, there’s nothing you can do to force them to read or acknowledge it.

But also, if you’re trying to overwhelm me with all this, it’s telling you, the Conservativethinker, have to basically copy somebody else’s work wholesale, even while you accuse me of being a conduit for Liberal Talking points. Are you simply accusing me of being an unoriginal political thinker to cover for your lack of real thought on these subjects?

Be a better arguer, somebody who draws people in, and maybe they’ll follow your line of attention of their own accord.

Stephen, you are the first to comment on how the questions are asked on polling results and yet now you are willing to quote statistics based upon false information.

False? These are right off the government’s own statistics. This is primary source information. And these are ALL murders, not merely the ones where a gun was involved.

As far as false information goes, you have to be careful yourself not to get lead astray.

As for overall crime rates, the question is, are guns the only significant factor?

The answer should be no, if you’re being honest. Lighter sentences can be a factor. So can the fact that Britain has neither our growth nor our employment levels. A more intensely stratified society can be another additional factor on top of that.

Also, in doing an apple:apple and orange:orange analogy, we would do well not to merely single out the UK or Australia, and instead would have to examine burglary and other property crime rates among a number of international Democracies.

You would also have to filter out the same variables with respect to the causes of crime as you did with the UK.

The question is not just whether I can disprove your notion that not having guns means more property crime, but whether you can prove your primary assertion in the first place, the one you use to push for a lack of gun control in this country.

Why should we not take a skeptical approach to your assumption that the lack of guns is the critical factor? Why should we not note that the UK has 90% urban population, Australia 89%, as opposed to 82% for our country? And how about social factors?

We look at Canada, where gun ownership is comparable, perhaps even greater than ours, but Gun Control is far more stringent, and we get another example of a disparity that may have a lot to do with social factors, rather than merely guns.

So, really, the problem with gun control in general may be that that there are other, stronger factors than the use of guns driving crime rates.

But specifically, I don’t see where you’ve refuted the point that laws on certain weapons, and on certain kinds of weapons exchanges couldn’t force people like the Mexican drug cartels to get their weapons elsewhere. It could be something as simple as changing reporting requirements, or limiting the number of guns you can buy for somebody else, with criminal penalties for passing them on in the way that straw buyers are.

You know, we could very easily toughen licensing, reporting, and registration requirements, and preserve the right of people to bear arms despite all that. But instead of agreeing to reasonable measures like this, the Gun Rights people have insisted on making it extraordinarily difficult for people to keep track of weapons, which it makes it easier for criminals to procure them, which makes it easier for gun control advocates to carry on about the need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

You’re creating the demand for gun control by the way you go about the business of gun rights advocacy. You’re pushing a whole bunch of paranoia and anger into the American population that doesn’t need to be there, all to keep a controversy going that doesn’t need to be kept going to preserve American’s Second Amendment Rights.

Criminals will always defy the law. That’s no reason to do away with law. That’s a reason to make sure the laws are properly designed and the law enforcement agencies are properly managed. This is the problem with the way Issa approaches the subject, and the rest of his apologists here, given that they’ve given up any option besides more attacks on big government as a solution.

I don’t recall the Cartels being short on guns before the Obama Administration, and this mistake taken for what it is, it doesn’t solve anything merely to make a scandal of the failure to embarrass the Obama Administration. The guns will still flow, and the prosecution of these people under current laws will still be difficult, the penalties too soft to scare people into making plea deals.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 20, 2011 4:09 PM
Comment #324741

Stephen said:

“dbs-
So you favor the average person being able to purchase a machine gun?

What is it with Conservatives and the often unwarranted belief they have that letting forces loose like these is all for the best?”

Well Stephen, during the days of the founding fathers, the public owned and used the same weapons as the military. We know that the founders believed it was the right of private citizens to own and use these same weapons. At what point does the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Federalist Papers say that private citizens no longer have the right to own the same rifles or hand guns as the military? I want to know what the law says and not what the left FEELS.

jlw says:

“Speaking of the tea party, the chairman of the Florida tea party has denounced the GOP Ryan Medicare Plan as a political nightmare that will cause major Republican losses in 2012; which in turn will cause the GOP to blame the tea party.”

Since there is no such thing as a political “Tea Party” and since those who support the basic tenants of the TP theory are not organized into a real political party; I guess my question would be, who cares what a chairman of the TP movement in FL thinks or does? Your comment would be like me quoting a liberal writer to SD who disagreed with SD’s beliefs (which I have done on many occasions) and SD responds by saying “who cares”, “this liberal writer doesn’t represent my thinking”. Well this mayor in FL doesn’t represent my thinking, so who cares what he believes. Unlike liberals who have a pack mentality, conservatives have a mind of their own and think independently.

“A conservative mayor in Georgia is suing the states anti-illegal immigration bill, saying it will deprive businesses in his community of low wage workers. He says the bill is anti-American.”

So does this mean you support the illegal hiring of low wage foreign workers and support business right to hire them?

“The Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot bypass the EPA in regulating greenhouse gas emissions. A loss for conservatives who want to regulate less and progressives who want to regulate more.”

Since the obama administration wants to bypass the congress (who voted against cap and trade) to invoke cap and trade on American citizens and business; I must consider the days of the EPA to be very limited. Since the American voter don’t want the EPA to exceed their authority, and since obama and the dems are looking to lose big in 2012; the TP will see to it that the EPA will be dissolved.

“The Court also ruled in favor of WalMart. Another loss for American workers.”

Can you list some of the Wal-Mart workers who believe they have lost, or is this just socialist union talking points?

“Nuclear regulators have allowed older nuclear power plants to remain operational by slowly but systematically weakening safety regulations.”

Yes, it’s a shame the liberal left and the EPA has blocked the building of new power plants and new oil refineries.

But on another note, that for some reason has escaped the discussions on WB; Gov. Walker in WI won a great victory against the public unions last week in their SC, and today Gov. Christy of NJ, with the help of a Dem. State Senate, has won a great victory over the public sector unions. Of course, the unions have promised to bring down the democrat Senators who voted for public employees to pay more for the HC and pensions.

Posted by: Conservtaivethinker at June 20, 2011 4:10 PM
Comment #324742

Stephen, by your own links, you try to prove that crimes committed with guns are down. Sure they are, because the guns were taken away. I already pointed to this fact; but, overall crime committed by weapons other than guns, is up. As usual, you learn nothing. It’s the same old double talk out of your mouth. So I am finished with the subject. You have been proven over and over again, from the beginning of your post that you are completely wrong and yet you still blab the same old bullshit.

Honestly, I don’t understand why anyone communicates with you at all.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 20, 2011 4:27 PM
Comment #324743

tom humes-
More potshots at rhetoric. Stop for a second and consider: if the crime is falsifying something on a federal form, why would the number of guns be relevant?

You don’t like Judicial activism, now do you? Well, the Judge has to interpret the law, and the law says it’s not illegal to buy four hundred guns for somebody else, just illegal to say you’re buying them for yourself on a federal form, when you’re not. There’s an argument that considering the number of guns as part of the case would be an act of judicial activism, and an overstepping of the law.

This is important, because when a case is appealed, it’s appealed more on the law than on the facts, so if the judge didn’t follow the law, their conviction of that gun trafficker could be overturned.

Now if you said the ATF screwed up and should have done a better job, of course. But if the law limits what they can arrest these people for, and what you’re demanding they do isn’t really practical or even legally correct (the way they’re straw-buying guns isn’t itself illegal, just lying on the forms) well then, you’re not really solving the problem yourself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 20, 2011 4:33 PM
Comment #324744

SD

The judge said the jury could not hear evidence that was part of the case. That was wrong. But I don’t have a law degree. And I certainly would not want to have you as my attorney.

What is the difference between a 3 week old puppy and a liberal.

After 6 weeks the puppy has his eyes opened and stops whining.

Posted by: tom humes at June 20, 2011 4:43 PM
Comment #324745

At the possibility of angering SD once again; I am including a quote I received from the NRA and was not able to link to:

” The congressional hearings held this week by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform revealed that the gun smuggling investigation known as “Fast and Furious” that was implemented out of the Phoenix Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) office was conducted in a reckless manner that led to the illegal sale of thousands of firearms. Many of those firearms ended up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels and other criminals, and may have contributed to the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

Some of the most important findings of the hearing and the investigative report compiled by the Committee staff include:
BATFE knowingly allowed as many as 2,500 firearms to be sold illegally to known or suspected straw purchasers. One of those purchasers accounted for over 700 illegal guns.

BATFE ordered its agents working the program not to arrest illegal gun buyers or to interdict thousands of guns that were allowed to “walk” into criminal hands.

Senior BATFE officials in Washington were regularly briefed on the operation and approved of the tactics employed.

BATFE agents who opposed the operation and who raised objections were told to “get with the program” and threatened with job retaliation if they continued their opposition.

A number of BATFE agents who were assigned to “Fast and Furious” testified about the operation.”

This about sums it up, you be the judge.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 20, 2011 5:24 PM
Comment #324746

Conservativethinker-
By your logic, then, Americans should be able to build fighter aircraft and tanks for personal use, carry around rocket launchers and miniguns… Jesus give me strength. This is the absurdity you’re holding up as an ideal.

There is no reason for the average American to have that kind of weaponry.

As for your claims about worse crime?

You keep on missing the point: you have to filter out all the other potential variables before you can say that the Guns made the difference. You can’t simply assume that it would, because other places have equal gun control, but not equal crime problems.

As for what the law says, it says, “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

But here’s what I believe: look at other parts of the constitution, which enable the government to hit back in the case of an insurrection, to even deny habeas corpus rights. The Framers weren’t aiming to have people organize their own rival armies, complete with the same weaponry.

It’s the potential to raise such a rival army that’s important. It’s having people who know how to handle a weapon that’s important. It’s having a populace that’s still armed, still capable of answering lethal force with lethal force that’s important, not having the unimaginably nightmarish weaponry of the modern day in the hands of civilians, too.

Honestly, I don’t understand why anyone communicates with you at all.

If you have the facts and the arguments on your side, you don’t need to so arrogantly question my right to debate. You don’t get to declare yourself the permanent winner of any and all discussions here.

You don’t seem to understand my basic psychology, do you? The more you try to intimidate me, ostracize me, the more I’m going to fight you. And you know what? I won’t make it easy. I will frustrate the hell out of you, and I’ll do so by forcing you to confront the weaknesses in your arguments that in your passion and your partisan fervor you don’t stop to question.

That’s why I’m challenging you on the assumption that gun laws were the main factor in creating the difference between non-murder crimes between the US and the UK. You want your sacred cow kept out of the discussion. You want your assumption to remain unquestioned.

But this country works best when the assumptions are challenged.

And it works best when people recognize truths that aren’t necessarily convenient: for example, guns don’t kill people, but they make it a hell of a lot easier to kill people in greater numbers. And yes, letting machine guns, grenade lauchers and other such weaponry on the market is asking for a disastrous incident somewhere, at some time.

For sake of the peace of society, and of the Republic, there’s got to be some kind of moderation here, because any situation where civil government has to keep order among a population armed with military grade weapons means that the same government is going to arm itself to the teeth, if only to calm the fears of the public that sees reports of the violence on the nightly news.

As for my comment on the greed for power?

Look, while Conservatives have effectively squeezed most of the nonconservatives out of the party, Democrats still have a substantial, if not majority segment who self-identify as moderates.

Many of our policies register majority support. So, that one isolated poll number doesn’t equate to your side having the public mandate on its side.

Sooner or later, the politics of the moderates are going to swing our way.

At the possibility of angering SD once again; I am including a quote I received from the NRA and was not able to link to:

Hmm. I’m not angry. I’m glad, actually. Hey, everyone! Remember this for the next time this commenter tries to trash me for supposedly using liberal talking points. This is a direct quote from the NRA, a now conservative lobbying group that has fought for years against the kinds of laws that would make it practicable to actually interdict the weapons, and prosecute the offenders in a way that will actually stick.

Ah, but now they want to have it both ways, and criticize the very people they don’t want to be able to do their jobs, for not doing their jobs.

This seems to be the pattern nowadays with conservative groups: take legislative action to prevent the other side from doing what it takes to solve a problem.

Wait for a disastrous policy outcome!

Then bash those damn liberals to your heart’s content!

Personally, I would prefer if Republicans acted to prevent such policy outcomes, in a real fashion, if only in their preferred fashion. I think they’d get a lot further in terms of politics if they gave people some positive results.

tom humes-
Why was it part of the case? The basic evidence would be the form the guy falsified. The number of guns would be beside the point, because the law doesn’t address the buying of those guns for the purpose of passing them on to others. It’s not even illegal.

It’s not always that rational or that intuitive, and it creates a lot of stupid technicalities, but the law works this way sometimes, because often the behavior we truly find to be offensive, in this case, buying guns on behalf of folks we don’t like, isn’t actually illegal, and the government’s being forced to take the Al Capone approach on putting them behind bars.

As for your comment about liberals, could you answer me one question: how does such offensive BS actually improve your argument’s likelihood of being accepted? Is it just about making the environment so toxic for anybody else that you succeed in running them off?

You know, sooner or later, all that will amount to is a triumph of self-isolation. Just look at the Republicans getting into those pie-fights now over who’s to blame about the party’s recen troubles. When somebody being your opponent means you can ignore the rules of civility, the problem becomes that eventually your allies find out what it’s like to be in the line of fire.

It’s an eye opening experience, let me tell you, the kind that makes Democrats and supporters of Democrats out of former Republicans.

I might say keep up the good work, but I have an interest in this forum becoming a friendlier place.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 20, 2011 5:49 PM
Comment #324748

“There is no reason for the average American to have that kind of weaponry”


I say There is no reason for the average American to not have that kind of weaponry.

Posted by: tdobson at June 20, 2011 6:54 PM
Comment #324750

I wouldn’t mind, if I could afford it, a Abrams tank or F18 fighter, Stephen. Getting the munitions for the 2 is a different story. I doubt you can go to the local gun shop for it. Nice to display at parades for the tank and air shows for the plane.

Posted by: KAP at June 20, 2011 7:46 PM
Comment #324752

“Conservativethinker-
By your logic, then, Americans should be able to build fighter aircraft and tanks for personal use, carry around rocket launchers and miniguns…”

And you Mr. Daugherty are a liar. I never said anything near what you claimed, but what I did say was, “At what point does the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Federalist Papers say that private citizens no longer have the right to own the same rifles or hand guns as the military?” Would you mind telling me how you get fighter aircraft, tanks, and rocket launchers out of rifles and handguns? Stephen why don’t you just write for the kos full time and stay away from WB altogether, if your sole purpose is to try to inflame by lying? One of the rules of WB is, “Trolling and flame baiting are NOT acceptable. This means comments whose primary effect is to provoke hostility or anger in other participants at WatchBlog are not tolerated.”

This Stephen, is exactly what you are doing by misrepresenting what I said.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 20, 2011 8:18 PM
Comment #324754

stephen

you can’t carry around a minigun. an exellent choice for pick-up mounting though.

Posted by: dbs at June 20, 2011 8:41 PM
Comment #324756

specs for the M134


http://www.motionpicturearmourer.com/m134_specifications.htm

Posted by: dbs at June 20, 2011 8:50 PM
Comment #324757

Conservativethinker-

Well Stephen, during the days of the founding fathers, the public owned and used the same weapons as the military. We know that the founders believed it was the right of private citizens to own and use these same weapons.

Your words. If the founders wanted the Average American to have the same weaponry, then why are we stopping at handguns and rifles? I wasn’t lying about your argument, I was bringing it to its logical, though absurd conclusion.

And really, if you’re simply talking handguns and rifles, that’s going to fall far short of what you and I both know our military to be capable of. It’d be like the current situation in Libya, only ten times worse.

As for this?

Stephen why don’t you just write for the kos full time and stay away from WB altogether, if your sole purpose is to try to inflame by lying? One of the rules of WB is, “Trolling and flame baiting are NOT acceptable. This means comments whose primary effect is to provoke hostility or anger in other participants at WatchBlog are not tolerated.”

Right. You openly curse at me, no censorship of the offending words, brush off suggestions that you follow guidelines on copyright compliance, and then start your lecture on trolling and flame-baiting by suggesting I write for Kos full time and stay away from the site that I’m a seven year member of, and say that I’m just lying.

You’ve repeatedly reminded me of my admitted mistake on Anthony Weiner, and claimed that this means I have no credibility. Then you lectured one of my folks on attacking the messenger rather than the message.

I would submit that the faster you can retreat from this topic, and fully implement the rules as written in that link, the longer you will remain a commenter here. These rules are not to be used at the convenience of your debate tactics, then thrown aside when you feel like it.

I have outlasted every person who has tried to badger and bully me off this site. I’m nowhere near perfect, but since I’m committed to the notion that what I stand for and believe in can be argued reasonably, I can adapt when Cameron tells me to pull back, as he has sometimes.

The question is, can you adapt to this? Can you argue these things shorn of all the insults and derogatory remarks? Or do you feel that you have to get in those kicks to the gut in order to get the result you’re looking for?

Now, having gone to Baylor, I know for a fact that there are Conservatives who can argue their beliefs reasonably, who don’t have to insult and demean to win an argument.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 20, 2011 9:10 PM
Comment #324763

SD

“if the crime is falsifying something on a federal form, why would the number of guns be relevant?”

That question is so ignorant I don’t even know why I am saying anything except maybe hope a word or two gets thru to you. The falsifying was in using an alias. The gun dealer knows how many guns; that was not going to be in error. So we have two pieces of information. A name and a quantity of guns that varied according to the different straw men. The name is falsified and agents are not allowed to interdict the event. Are you still with me. I know for some people this gets complicated. So the straw men break federal law by using an alias. Got it? The agents cannot continue their surveilance at the orders of higher authority all the way to DOJ and the road in between. Got it? Then why is this so difficult for you? And I think I have the answer. You are as CT said. A socialist who is in favor of federal authority to control who has the guns and everything about the gun and its owner. The Hardy Boys had this one figured out a long time ago.

Posted by: tom humes at June 20, 2011 10:40 PM
Comment #324765

tom humes-
The crime wasn’t the number of guns he got, it’s whatever lie was on the form. So, they’d have to prove the dishonesty on the form. Now the point of a lot of these gunrunners straw-buying for the cartel, is that they’d have clean records, making their purchases easier. They wouldn’t use aliases, because that would defeat the point of what theyw ere doing.

The question would be proving they lied on the form, not proving they were a gunrunner.


I don’t need to belittle you to make that point. They were trying to prosecute him as a gunrunner, but they couldn’t because getting guns the way he did wasn’t itself a crime.

See, this is the problem: You folks want to get these guys on a offense that you’re not even willing to make a crime!

So, they either have to get these guys on some sort of stupid pretext that’s difficult to nail them down on, or you have to follow the trail further up, in hopes of actually running into somebody you really can throw the book at, and make a dent in the Cartel’s operation.

That’s the dilemma your people and the ATF are in, because you’re playing politics here.

The problem is, you will not avail yourselves of the truly effective options. You’ll just call people like me socialists, and accuse us of wanting to create a police state.

I’ve offered my actual opinions, so I find it surreal that somebody’s trying to convince me or anybody else that my beliefs are otherwise. Apparently, applying the inane stereotypes takes priority over actual listening.

And you know what the stupidest thing is?

Some people, while not totally committed, are open to a moderate version of your preferred policies. You would reject such people, simply because they aren’t the purists you are. And as a result, you end up alienating many who could help make your policy more popular.

If the Republicans were willing to create gentler versions of their policies, more moderate, they could appeal to the center, appeal to the moderates, and draw that support away from Democrats.

Instead, purity matters most. In the end, if you won’t settle for anything short of everything, you’ll get nothing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 21, 2011 12:02 AM
Comment #324767

SD

Your argument on the gun runners does not make sense.

They use an alias because they could not use their real name and purchase firearms.

If their name was clean they could buy all the guns they wanted and be legal.

Because they are not clean, the alias is illegal, the purchase is illegal, and the delivery to a third party is illegal, and the destination is illegal. To further make a mess ATF agents were not allowed to interdict the total illegal activity and were allowed to let the weapons walk. They then had to deal with a BP agent getting killed. Two of the three weapons at the murder scene were allowed to walk under the program we are discussing and carried out by government people who were either stupid or had an agenda. I think it was both.

You need to read the transcript or see a re-run of the hearing to see the activity unfold.

Earlier I stated that Rep. Issa was afraid of nothing. Let me change my approach. He is afraid of allowing the criminals in the US and Mexico getting weapons that will be used in an illegal manner to create more mayhem on the streets. An addendum to that is that the more mayhem criminals create the more gun control advocates will put pressure to make it illegal for anybody to own one of those weapons. Of course the criminal could care less he will own one and continue to use it for illegal enterprise.

That is the bottom line. Gun ownership control.

So everything about the operation is illegal and yet condoned by ATF, DOJ and even the WH.

Posted by: tom humes at June 21, 2011 11:03 AM
Comment #324768

Stephen, excellent debate, the opposition would have tanks and machine guns and fighter jets in their garage and wonder why we call them the far right wingnuts. And while dbs calls you a liar, you couldn’t be more spot on. I also notice the insults and ridicule thrown your way and the calm cool collected and professional way you respond to these insults while doing your best to respond to even the most absurd attacks. Good job.

Posted by: Jeff at June 21, 2011 12:07 PM
Comment #324769

jeff

where did i call stephen a liar? oh….and jeff, most people can manage to scrape up the money to buy an AR, or AK. a tank……a fighter jet? do you suppose the average person can even fly plane, let alone a piece of advanced military hardware like an F-15. posssesing a rifle suitable for infantry use is realistic. possesing something that costs 10s of 1000s, or 100s of 1000s such as most modern most machineguns, or a fighter, or tank that cost 10s of millions and more is unrealistic, and is so cost prohibitive that will never be an issue anyway. go online jeff and price machineguns. you’ll find them extremely expensive. it is this very principle that makes the tank, and atom bomb arguments of the left so absolutely retarded.

here ya go jeff. i’m sure we’ll have a real problem with these being purchased en masse on the civilian market. got an extra $215,000 sitting around? i doubt most people do.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2009/10/21/ge-m134-mini-gun-fully-transferable/

Posted by: dbs at June 21, 2011 2:07 PM
Comment #324770

so dbs you automatically disregard those such as a drug cartel, terrorist organizations and right wing extremist organizations, not to mention the Koch Bros and other wealthy industrialist when you make your claim about retarded arguments?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 21, 2011 2:18 PM
Comment #324771


“That is the bottom line. Gun ownership control.”

That is the bottom propaganda line for gun manufactures, the NRA, the Republican Party and conservatives in general.

The bottom line is that between 40 and 50% of American homes have at least one gun.

The bottom line is that laws pertaining to gun owners have been liberalized in recent years.

You can’t smoke a cigarette in a bar in Ohio, but you can pack a concealed weapon in the bar.

Should a bar owner have the right to refuse to allow weapons in his bar?

The bottom line is that there will always be people willing to sell illegal substances or illegally sell legal products when there is a demand for those things. No one would bother to pack drugs north and guns south if there were no buyers.

The bottom line is that the governments efforts to stop such illegal activities has never been particularly good, in fact, it has been rather dismal. In all the years of the War on Drugs, the government has the great distinction of interdicting about 5% of the illegal drugs coming into the country.

The bottom line is that no one has sold more guns in America than President Obama. He has been creating lines at the gun dealers for two and a half years now. Gun manufactures should definately be supporting Obama in the next election.

Posted by: jlw at June 21, 2011 2:28 PM
Comment #324773

j2t2

legal or not, cartels, and terrorist will get thier hands on whatever guns they want. it all comes down to what they are willing to pay. fighter jets, and tanks are impractal, and a red herring.


“right wing extremist organizations, not to mention the Koch Bros and other wealthy industrialist when you make your claim about retarded arguments?”

throwing the koch bros in there is on its face retarded. do you really think they have the need to be in the market for heavy weapons? really? i guess we would have to worry about george soros doing it too then, right?

as for right wing extremist. how much money do you really believe they could raise? this just typical leftist fearmongering.

the tank, atom bomb argument is ridiculous, as it is a non issue.

on the other hand allowing law abidding citizens to own AR15s, AK47s, and similar weapons is completely reasonable. the fact these weapons are already widely owned by private citizens without war breaking out in the streets is proof in of itself that the lefts arguments don’t hold water.

Posted by: dbs at June 21, 2011 3:27 PM
Comment #324775

jlw

“You can’t smoke a cigarette in a bar in Ohio, but you can pack a concealed weapon in the bar.”

only if you are not consuming alcohol. let’s be honest the guy that wants to carry in a bar even if he’s drinking is already doing it, with or without a ccw, and would be breaking more than one law. BTW, did kasich sign that law? i haven’t heard.

“Should a bar owner have the right to refuse to allow weapons in his bar?”

absolutely. but if you consider the bad guys are going to do it anyway, isn’t it helpful to a few good guys around. either way it should be up to the owner.

Posted by: dbs at June 21, 2011 3:40 PM
Comment #324777
legal or not, cartels, and terrorist will get thier hands on whatever guns they want. it all comes down to what they are willing to pay. fighter jets, and tanks are impractal, and a red herring.

So dbs fighter jets and tanks are inconceivable in your view, yet wouldn’t serious “patriots” such as the oathkeepers and the various militias deem them necessary to fight? Were they to decide to revolt and overthrow the Obama administration wouldn’t they need planes and tanks to fight the reserves? If not then they are the retards right? Also you need to remember that a small group of foreign terrorist hijacked several planes a decade ago, why would you think domestic terrorist couldn’t hijack tanks or fighter planes from bases in this country? Red herring not!

throwing the koch bros in there is on its face retarded. do you really think they have the need to be in the market for heavy weapons? really? i guess we would have to worry about george soros doing it too then, right?

Retarded! jeez dbs there you go again. The Koch bros were used as an example of wealthy ideologues that should they desire could afford to spring for a fighter plane or 3 ans well as a few tanks. Sorta refutes your “unafforadable” argument.

as for right wing extremist. how much money do you really believe they could raise? this just typical leftist fearmongering.

You mean they wouldn’t be able to fund a revolt as the country turns into obamanation, where is their patriotism and dedication? It seems extremist right wing militia members raised enough funds to blow up a building in OKC during their heyday.

the tank, atom bomb argument is ridiculous, as it is a non issue.

Well why then does the military bother to secure the planes and tanks they use instead of parking them in lots in town? For that matter why bother to secure and patrol the missile silo’s around the nation?

on the other hand allowing law abidding citizens to own AR15s, AK47s, and similar weapons is completely reasonable. the fact these weapons are already widely owned by private citizens without war breaking out in the streets is proof in of itself that the lefts arguments don’t hold water.

law abiding citizens, dbs? I suppose you have never owned, or knew someone that owned, clips that held a few to many rounds? I suppose you never owned, or knew someone that owned, an AK or AR that had been converted back to full auto. I suppose you have never, or knew someone that never, “ring and stringed” to bump fire your AR.

The AR and AK legally owned on the streets are not FA’s so I don’t get your logic that because they exist without a revolt it proves anything, dbs.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 21, 2011 4:49 PM
Comment #324778

jlw, the law in Ohio allowing CCW permit holders to carry in bars and restaurants has not yet been signed by the Governor. You might also want to include that the one carrying cannot drink alcohol.

Posted by: mike at June 21, 2011 5:20 PM
Comment #324780

dbs did you buy into the weapons of mass destruction when GWB was leading the charge into Iraq? We were in imminent danger from Iraq and their ability to give nukes to terrorist. Yet now you tell me it can’t happen here, that it is a nonissue?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 21, 2011 5:50 PM
Comment #324781

tom humes-
I posted this link earlier. I think it helps explain what we’re likely talking about here:

The gun laws in the United States allow the sale of multiple military-style rifles to American citizens without reporting the sales to the government, and the Mexicans search relatively few cars and trucks coming into the country.

What is more, the sheer volume of licensed dealers - more than 6,600 along the border alone, many of them operating out of their homes - makes policing them a tall order. The ATF now has about 200 agents assigned to the task.

Smugglers routinely enlist Americans with clean criminal records to buy two or three rifles at a time, often from different shops, then transport them across the border in cars and trucks, hiding them in door panels or under the hood, law enforcement officials here said. Some of the smuggled weapons are also bought from private individuals at gun shows, and the law requires no notification of the authorities in those cases.

“We can move against the most outrageous purveyors of arms to Mexico, but the characteristic of the arms trade is it’s a ‘parade of ants’ - it’s not any one big dealer; it’s lots of individuals,” said Arizona’s attorney general, Terry Goddard, who is prosecuting Iknadosian. “That makes it very hard to detect because it’s often below the radar.”

The issue with the prosecution on the mistatements on the form could be any number of things, but like the article says, they probably go with people who have clean records, because the FBI can actually find a real record for those people, and clear them to be sold those guns.

Gun sales, which, even with passing those weapons on, or buying them on behalf of the Drug Cartels, were perfectly legal in and of themselves.

See, that’s the thing you’re going to keep on ignoring here, despite the fact that it’s a crucial question here in practical terms. In real terms, there is no legal, direct way to prosecute those people for the action you condemn the ATF for allowing to occur!

You can’t have it both ways. You cannot bash gun laws, then turn around and demand that the behavior you just worked to keep legal be criminalized and stopped.

If you want to stop these people, you have to write the laws that way, in a constitutional way, of course.

As for the unrealisticness of people owning tanks and fighter jets? Well, if they’re rich enough, they can build, equip, and field their own private army. They might not be able to get the biggest of big-ticket items, but things like small artillery pieces and heavy infantry arms could be within their grasp.

Additionally, there is the possibility that a sufficiently rich person could field or engineer military drones of different kinds.

Point is, there’s a certain level of force you want the national government to keep to itself, so your nation doesn’t tear itself apart.

As for the bar owner? They can forbid guns in their establishment, but that doesn’t mean they can’t carry one themselves.

mike-
First, Republican majorities passed it. Second, the law says they cannot drink alcohol while they carry. By the logic of your fellow conservatives and right-wingers, since criminals will not observe this part of the law, it is of no use, because by their logic, only the laws that criminals obey are of any use.

Or maybe the purpose of the law is to codify what behavior will get you punished, so that if you’re caught doing it, somebody can fine you or put you in jail. The punishments then serve as deterrents for that sort of behavior.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 21, 2011 6:36 PM
Comment #324782

j2t2


“So dbs fighter jets and tanks are inconceivable in your view, yet wouldn’t serious “patriots” such as the oathkeepers and the various militias deem them necessary to fight? Were they to decide to revolt and overthrow the Obama administration wouldn’t they need planes and tanks to fight the reserves?”


you would have to first consider whether the gov’t would wage war on its own citizens. my guess is there would be massive defections on the part of our troops.

as to the second assertion that a rebelion would need planes and tanks. maybe not. how well did those weapons work against the afghans when the russians used them? seems the afghans did fine without them.

“Also you need to remember that a small group of foreign terrorist hijacked several planes a decade ago, why would you think domestic terrorist couldn’t hijack tanks or fighter planes from bases in this country? Red herring not!”


hijacking a comercial airliner, and stealing a tank along with the ammunition needed to use it from a military base? not even in the same league. the latter is all but impossible.


“The Koch bros were used as an example of wealthy ideologues that should they desire could afford to spring for a fighter plane or 3 ans well as a few tanks. Sorta refutes your “unafforadable” argument.”


it’s as likely a scenario as soros doing that same thing. so would you be concerned mr soros might purchase these items, or just right wing ” idealogues”? BTW. do you believe a couple of businessmen could overthrow the gov’t by simply buying a handful of large weapons systems? really? pretty proposterous don’t you think?


“Well why then does the military bother to secure the planes and tanks they use instead of parking them in lots in town? For that matter why bother to secure and patrol the missile silo’s around the nation?”


ya….i can see a couple hillbillys stealing a minuteman right out of the silo. you think one of the key reason for protecting these weapons systems might be the technology inside them? thier more worried about that technology being stolen and sold to other countries? yeeeeeee hhhhaaaaaa billybob let’s steal us a tank and take over the country. get real!


“law abiding citizens, dbs? I suppose you have never owned, or knew someone that owned, clips that held a few to many rounds?”


how many rounds would that be? do you have a number, or is this just more hype, and fear mongering?


“I suppose you never owned, or knew someone that owned, an AK or AR that had been converted back to full auto.”

nope, that is illegal. and unnecessary. while i don’t have a problem with people owning automatic weapons, it is the least effective use of ammunition.


“I suppose you have never, or knew someone that never, “ring and stringed” to bump fire your AR.”

nope. once again, illegal. how about you?


“The AR and AK legally owned on the streets are not FA’s so I don’t get your logic that because they exist without a revolt it proves anything, dbs.”

it proves they are not the menace you on the left would portray them to be. i might also add, why is it you fear them so much?

the fact that they make a revolt possible as last resort to overthrow tyranny, and restore our constitutional gov’t is the main reason that they should exist. would you fear a dog with no teeth? then why would our elected gov’t officials? at least that’s the way the founders saw it.

Posted by: dbs at June 21, 2011 6:37 PM
Comment #324783

stephen

“Or maybe the purpose of the law is to codify what behavior will get you punished, so that if you’re caught doing it, somebody can fine you or put you in jail. The punishments then serve as deterrents for that sort of behavior.”


it is currently illegal in ohio to carry a gun into any establishment that serves alcohol, even with a ccw. the purpose of the law is to allow carry so long as the carrier is not consuming, and has a ccw. the owner can forbid the carrying in his/her business by posting it at the entrance. carrying a gun into a business where the owners has prohibited it would be a crime. as i said before someone who wants to carry a gun into an establishment that serves alcohol, and consume alcohol is going to do so with or without a ccw. kasich should sign the bill.

Posted by: dbs at June 21, 2011 7:51 PM
Comment #324788

SD

You started out with Rep. Issa and the hearing he is chairman of. The issue is “Operation Fast and Furious”. You have proceeded to expand what has happened in that operation to generalize a lot of statements.

What happened in “Operation Fast and Furious” was a whole lot of illegal activity condoned by people all the way to the WH. Now you can skirt the issue and generalize all you want. But you are the one who started the discussion with that little panty waist rant about Rep. Issa that was a nothing event. What I am trying to bring home here is that the straw buyers committed illegal acts and the got a pass. Your reference that it is legal to straw purchase is legal. So be it if it is done in a legal manner. In OFF it was not done in a legal manner. These purchases were done in Phoenix at licensed gun dealers who cooperated with ATF to bring down illegal activity. It did not happen that way.

“Some of the smuggled weapons are also bought from private individuals at gun shows, and the law requires no notification of the authorities in those cases.”

Very few are purchased that way. There is big money behind these straw purchases and they know how and where to get the guns. Again this is outside the scope of OFF. Just another skirting of the issue.

You also spout off about who supports which laws. If it is a law it should be obeyed. It makes no difference whether one agrees with a law, it must be obeyed.

There is a trail of evidence all the way to the WH that should bring indictments for a whole lot of criminal activity. Including accomplice to murder of a federal law enforcement individual.

Posted by: tom humes at June 21, 2011 9:38 PM
Comment #324792

Tom Humes, since the original topic of the post was “Operation Fast and Furious”, it would have seemed SD would have tried to keep it in that direction; but this post has allowed these gun hating socialists a platform to tell how much they support the 2nd ammendment and at the same time saying the 2nd ammendment does not really allow us to own anything but a slingshot. If you take all the statements made by these socialist, it is easy to see they are completely against the 2nd ammendment. I own SKS’s, AK’s, and many other military weapons, and I own them because I can, and I don’t have to give a reason to any socialist SOB.

Concerning the ATF allowing these guns to be sold to the Mex cartel: the hope of the obama admin and Holder’s justice dept belive the resignation or firing of the head of the ATF will hopefully allow the whole thing to be swept under the carpet. Obama and Holder both knew exactly what was going on and the head of the ATF is the fall guy.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 21, 2011 10:49 PM
Comment #324793

>mike-
First, Republican majorities passed it. Second, the law says they cannot drink alcohol while they carry. By the logic of your fellow conservatives and right-wingers, since criminals will not observe this part of the law, it is of no use, because by their logic, only the laws that criminals obey are of any use.

Or maybe the purpose of the law is to codify what behavior will get you punished, so that if you’re caught doing it, somebody can fine you or put you in jail. The punishments then serve as deterrents for that sort of behavior.

Stephen, I believe I said the person could not carry while drinking and yes we have a Republican majority in Ohio, as well as a Republican Governor and yes they passed the bill; what is your point?

I am having a problem understanding this statement, “By the logic of your fellow conservatives and right-wingers, since criminals will not observe this part of the law, it is of no use, because by their logic, only the laws that criminals obey are of any use.”

First, I never said right-wingers or conservatives were fellows, and secondly, the passage of conceal carry laws mean nothing to the criminals; again, what is your point?

Stephen, I have read some of your statements about the 2nd Ammendment and you say you support it; but do you support laws that are passed by the States concerning gun laws? Or do you believe Republican controlled States do not have the right to pass laws allowing law abiding citizens the right carry cocealed weapons?

Posted by: mike at June 21, 2011 11:00 PM
Comment #324794

Tom,

Lets get something straight. The type of operation that was involved in “Fast and Furious” was nothing unusual for law enforcement. The DEA and other agencies use stings and other variants all the time. They are designed to track low level operators to higher levels. Technically, they break the law or allow the law to broken all the time in the interest in finding the main source or higher level command structure. The DEA sets up money laundering operations and other trafficking operations routinely to gain access to cartel principals and knowledge of the workings of a drug pipeline.

That said, this operation was clearly over the line. They were allowing high powered weaponry to walk without the ability to adequately track their transfer and ultimate destination. They could not, therefore, control their use. It was simply walk them and see where they finally show up. It is one thing to allow or arrange for a few kilos of marijuana or cocaine to get passed, it is another to allow weapons to get to the hands of those who will use them to kill.

This was nothing more than an incompetent and reckless operation by the agency that brought you Waco. Nothing more, nothing less. ATF and some in DOJ were more interested in busting a major gun trafficking operation, which may or may not exist, than the safety of those that may have been harmed or killed by the weapons.


Posted by: Rich at June 21, 2011 11:15 PM
Comment #324795

Rich, you are correct about DEA, DOJ, and the ATF running sting operations; but as these weapons were being sent to Mexico, the Mexican government and the Obama Administration were calling for tougher gun laws in the United States. But, it was the ATF and DOJ who were breaking the law and allowing it to be blamed on gun stores and gun shows. So, in reality, the events taking place by the DOJ and the ATF were being used as an excuse to limit American’s gun rights. I’m not saying it was a conspiracy, but it does look suspicious. I guess the question is; is our government capable of setting something like this up? And I would have to say yes.

Posted by: mike at June 21, 2011 11:36 PM
Comment #324796

Conservativethinker,

Lets get something straight. It is now crystal clear from recent Supreme Court rulings that the government cannot outright ban the ownership and possession of guns by citizens under the 2nd Amendment. That is what the recent court decisions have essentially been about.

However, even the most conservative justices recognize that government has the right to regulate the commercial sale, who may not possess or purchase guns, the type of guns available, etc. The limits of government regulation have not been fully fleshed out by the court decisions. For example, in the Washington, DC case, the Court was silent on the licensing requirements. It simply said that the government must issue a license to possess a gun to any qualifying citizen who desires one. It cannot blanket deny a citizen a right to a license to possess a gun if he/she meets the licensing requirements.

Conservatives want unfettered access to any and all weapons without restrictions across the nation. That won’t happen. There are and will be limitations. In my opinion, the limitations will vary by state and local jurisdictions within a broad set of standards worked out in Supreme Court decisions over the next couple of years. Red states will have more liberal regulations, Blue states will have more restrictive regulations.


Posted by: Rich at June 21, 2011 11:49 PM
Comment #324797

Rich, you sound angry that the SC you recognize the 2nd amendment as a right…

I don’t have a problem with blue states limiting the rights of Americans owning firearms and also having a corresponding higher crime rate. I live in a Red state and our rights have not been infringed upon. And our politicians are kept on a short leash. To vote for gun control in my state means the unemployment line. Cities like DC and Chicago hate the thought of its residents being able to protect themselves and the SC will have to rehear these cases over and over, until either a liberal court agrees with them, or until the SC finally settles the issue for good.

You do realize that even if the left was able to stuff the SC with socialist judges, who in turn banned the ownership of guns, Americans would never surrender their guns…

As per conservatives having “unfettered access to any and all weapons without restrictions across the nation”…and why not, what is it with the left and its hatred of people being armed?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 22, 2011 12:07 AM
Comment #324798

Mike,

I think that we generally agree on the issue with the exception that there may have been some intent to use the issue to limit American’s gun rights.

I think that they had this idea that there was major gun trafficking between the US and Mexican cartels and they were going to bust it to prove their theory. Mexicans are trafficking drugs, we must be trafficking guns. Perhaps that is a liberal perspective and could be used as evidence that US gun laws should be tightened. However, the guy heading up the operation was a Republican appointee held over by the Obama administration and appointed acting director of ATF. I think that it was just a reckless effort to make a major bust and make a name for himself and the agency. Higher ups, in my opinion, seized upon the idea with little thought about the consequences other than they could proclaim to the Mexicans that we are doing our part in controlling the cartel drug trafficking and related violence.


Posted by: Rich at June 22, 2011 12:07 AM
Comment #324799

conservativethinker,

I am not angry at the Supreme Court decisions. In fact, I think that blanket denials of gun ownership or possession are clearly in violation of the 2d Amendment. A friend of mine, who has a concealed weapon permit from a New England state, was arrested in DC a few years ago when he attempted to surrender the weapon at a national museum while visiting with his family. He thought that he was doing the right thing. He was treated as violent criminal, charged with a felony and spent a weekend in jail. Ultimately he was convicted of a misdemeanor after spending thousands of dollars on legal expenses. It was nonsense.

Gun ownership is a constitutional right. On that we agree. We disagree on whether there are limits to that ownership. In my opinion, it would be helpful if the Supreme Court court were to establish the boundaries of those limits.


Posted by: Rich at June 22, 2011 12:25 AM
Comment #324800

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/993-more-concealed-carry-facts-statistics.html

1. More Concealed Carry Facts & Statistics
Today, there are only 5 states that do not have a right-to-carry system.

States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports)

Right-to-carry license holders are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, for example, the firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) Research reports printed in "More Guns, Less Crime", John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, examined data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3.045 counties over a 1977 too 1994 time span. Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. Among Prof. Lott's findings:

• While arrest and conviction rates being the most important factors influencing crime…. non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime.

• Non discretionary or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business.

• States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

• There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates.

• For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%.

• Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the rate for men.

• The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others get a free ride from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens.

• The benefits of right-to-carry are not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns. The most obvious example of this "halo" effect, is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of non discretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area.

• The increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns."

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 22, 2011 12:31 AM
Comment #324801

Thanks Conservativethinker for the stats. Here is a link to some great stats that apply to a lot of arguments that have been made on this article:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Posted by: mike at June 22, 2011 12:47 AM
Comment #324802

CT,

Your link shows that your “facts” are 15 years old.

Mike,

Your link shows that, in 2009, there were 300,000,000 firearms owned by the public in this country. That’s 1 gun for nearly every man, woman, and child.

You guys seem to be only whining about the fact that you can’t have “specific” weapons. Weapons, BTW, that, in the right hands, are capable of putting down a target from over 500 yards, and some from nearly 900 yards.
Seems to me these are weapons that are used to hunt man, not beast.
I own a 45/70 lever action saddle gun with which I can hit a 6” target from 100 yards, and I guarantee that target will stay down.

Oh, and just one more thing. Have any of you guys ever actually killed a man? Because it seems to me that all of your arguments are driven more by testosterone than common sense.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 22, 2011 8:13 AM
Comment #324803

tom humes-
The question was whether strawbuying, that is, buying a gun for somebody else who pays, is illegal. It’s not. Moreover, there’s no real ability to track any of the weapons.

You want to be a big damn scandal for the Obama Administration. But what anybody not blinded by hatred for Obama can see is that this is a badly mismanaged sting operation, not a deliberate attempt to arm criminals at Border Patrol Officers and civilian’s expense.

But no, instead of dealing with the problem, which is that our way too loose gun laws make it next to impossible to actually prevent this misuse of the Second Amendment, those on the right are going to expect the ATF to enforce laws that don’t exist on the book, and which they would never allow to exist in the first place.

It would not disrupt the average person’s ability to get a gun to put some limits on the way people buy them, to toughen penalties for acts like this. The irony here is, Republicans Conservatives are getting bent out of shape on cue at the fact that guns found their way into the hands of the cartel, but they balk at the proposition of making these kinds of purchases illegal, and punishable by a stiff sentence.

In other words, folks on the right like you, because of your extremist stance on Gun Rights, are all talk, and no follow-through.

Conservativethinker-
Your worst conflict is not with me, but with yourself. You want your authoritarian style law and order on the border, forever using violence there to blame the Obama administration for being soft on border related issues, but you will not countenance the laws and regulations to criminalize the very behavior you protest as most outrageous.

If somebody hands you the money to buy a gun for them, and you do so, you’ve broken no laws, even if that somebody is the Columbian Drug Cartel. You obviously will support no legislation to change that. Yet, you will want the ATF to throw the book at the people buying these guns.

If we make the changes to the laws necessary to criminalize such straw buying, the personal right to buy a gun for your own use with your own money will not go away. The right of the people to keep and bear arms will not have been infringed upon.

The absurdity of your party’s extremism can be seen in these conflicting approaches to the problem. And it’s not the only place we see such conflict.

Republicans want to reduce the deficit, but the first thing they often propose are tax cuts which reduce revenue, and rarely if ever spur enough activity to make up for, much less increase that revenue.

The problem for the Republicans is that they shaped their agenda to counter folks like me, but the opposite of a consistent point of view is not necessarily another consistent, much less logical point of view. Cap and Trade was a conservative idea, but Republicans have suddenly declared it anathema because Democrats decided they liked it, and their campaign contributors decided they didn’t. Just a few years ago, Republicans were willing to admit global warming was real. Now even the few who still do suffer politically for it, and the rest indulge in a conspiracy theory that should get them laughed out of the room, but doesn’t.

You call me a socialist all the time, and I’m beginning to think the main reason why the Republicans do that is so that you can label me as part of this vast, shadowy, threat that doesn’t need to be explained, actually proven, or any of that rational garbage. It can just be there to push people emotionally towards whatever political position the Republicans will decide to take today.

But whatever you call something, that won’t change what policies work, and what policies don’t, and the problem here is that you can’t admit that even if the ATF fully carried out the law as it was supposed to, and just arrested those straw-buyers, many of them would walk, and many of them would end up acquitted, and not one of them could actually be arrest and tried, much less convicted for straw-buying, since it isn’t illegal. You’ve literally set an impossible standard for the ATF to follow, and you don’t care because making a scandal about it benefits your side politically. More fear and hatred to stir up.

But the problem remains unresolved.

I got into this blogging business because I wanted problems solved. I opposed Bush because he was a crappy problem solver who let his politics get in the way of actually responding in good time to crises.

I don’t need to take your exact opposite position, as you imagine, to oppose your policies. I want law-abiding Americans to have their guns, if they want them. But I at least will advocate for the laws that keep them out of criminal’s hands, and which encourage responsible ownership and use. I have no need to flatly contradict you to find a consistent position. I can balance the two different sides of the equation, rather than feverishly insisting that we endlessly push for the extreme position.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2011 8:35 AM
Comment #324804

What did Representative Issa know, and when did he know it?

A chief Republican critic of a controversial U.S. anti-gun-trafficking operation was briefed on ATF’s “Fast and Furious” program last year and did not express any opposition, sources familiar with the classified briefing said Tuesday.

Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.), who has repeatedly called for top Justice Department officials to be held accountable for the now-defunct operation, was given highly specific information about it at an April 2010 briefing, the sources said. Members of his staff also attended the session, which Issa and two other Republican congressmen had requested.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2011 10:25 AM
Comment #324805

Alright Stephen, let’s look at this logically; you do understand logic, don’t you? The obama administration, the Justice Department, and the leadership of the ATF claim they knew nothing about this “Fast and Furious” program. Then you write a post, claiming that Rep Darrell Issa was trying to block the real discussion of the issue. At the same time, Oversight Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said in a statement that “no legitimate examination of this issue will be complete without analyzing our nation’s gun laws, which allow tens of thousands of assault weapons to flood into Mexico from the United States every year, including fifty caliber sniper rifles, multiple AK variants, and scores of others.”

So we find from the comments made by both sides: Issa wants to know how the ATF allowed guns to get in the hands of the ATF and democrat Cummings wanted to add more gun laws, even after existing gun laws had been broken.

Then you link to an article (by the way, a flaming liberal newspaper whose goal is to protect obama and his screw-up’s), which says that Issa and other Republicans knew about the whole “Fast and Furious” program in April of 2010. Yet we have documents showing that agents who worked on Project Gunrunner didn’t intend for weapons that were supposed to be tracked in an effort to prosecute larger kingpins of guntrafficking operations to actually cross the border:

“We have no plans of letting any firearms (with or without a tracker) cross from the U.S. into Mexico,” ATF Agent David Voth wrote in an email on April 23, 2010.

You accuse Issa of knowing that guns were going to be purchased and allowed to be sent to the cartel for the purpose of tracking them, and yet, by the ATF’s own stated email, these weapons were never planned to cross the border.

Your link says, “All of the things [Issa] has been screaming about, he was briefed on,’’ said one source familiar with the session.

And just who is this unnamed source? You have the audacity to make a claim on an unnamed source, which happened to be familiar with the case. Since you posted this topic Stephen, there are several of us on WB who are now familiar with the case; would you be willing to accept an unnamed source from any conservative?

Again, from your link:

“Frederick R. Hill, a spokesman for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which Issa chairs, acknowledged on Tuesday that an ATF briefing on “weapons smuggling by criminal cartels” took place in April 2010 but declined to specify what Issa or his staff were told.
He accused “opponents” of the committee’s investigation of the gun-trafficking operation of “incredulously trying to assert that Obama administration political appointees at the Justice Department were ignorant — yet Congress was in the know on the details of Operation Fast and Furious.’’
“This irresponsible and false accusation is indicative of a Justice Department bereft of leadership and rattled by the revelations of its own misconduct,’’ Hill added.

So what we have now is Hill, a spokesman for the HOGRC, admitting there was a briefing (which was common knowledge); but that the specifics of what actually happened was never revealed and this can be proved by the email I stated above, “We have no plans of letting any firearms (with or without a tracker) cross from the U.S. into Mexico,” ATF Agent David Voth wrote in an email on April 23, 2010.

You claim that Issa know all about this from a briefing in April 2010, and yet you defend the obama admin and the DOJ of not knowing anything about it.

We have testimony of ATF agents who were against this program and who warned against it, but their warnings were ignored. We have an obama admin and a DOJ who are scrambling to CYA, and as usual, using the liberal press to sling shit at the wall and see how much of it sticks. But they know this could really blow up in their faces. If it’s not a problem, then pray tell why the acting head of the ATF is about to be the sacrificial lamb?

Your accusations against Issa, was that he was afraid to allow some to speak because he was afraid that it would lead to the need of more gun laws, and yet we see his reason was to keep the investigation on course. Secondly, this can be proven by the fact that Cummings wanted the investigation to be about gun control and not the government’s involvement in gun-running. And lastly it can be proven by the fact that you and other liberals have directed this post in the direction of more gun control and not investigation as to what really happened.

The left is so predictable, they hate to be accused of certain things and just get furious: they are against killing, but have no problem with abortion as a means to birth control; they love the troops, but work to defund them; they are for the 2nd amendment, but have never met a gun law that didn’t like; they are for freedom of speech, but want laws shutting down conservative talk radio and TV; and the list goes on.

Let me quote an unnamed source, “The Obama administration and the DOJ used “Fast and Furious” as a platform and excuse to place more stringent gun control laws on Americans, with the ultimate goal of complete confiscation of guns”.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 22, 2011 11:59 AM
Comment #324810

Conservativethinker-
I think we should assume that all person here understand, or should understand logic.

The hidden premise you have in there is that any such action would be unnecessary, or unconstitutional.

Except, you want exactly what the laws would give police, prosecutors and judges the ability to do: prosecute these people for being straw-buyers.

It’s not unnecessary, then. You want people prosecuted and stopped from passing these arms on to the cartel. You must think doing something along those lines is constitutionally permissable.

Current law does not allow prosecution for that. You would oppose any change in our laws in that direction.

So, we’re at an impasse here, mostly due to you and your Party’s complete inability to leave the political dogmas and absolutists positions behind. You’re fine with inflicting political damage on the Administration over this, but you’re not fine with doing what it takes to solve the very problem you’re condemning the administration over.

To make it even more absurd, you’re alleging that the Administration would purposefully inflict political damage of this kind so it can secretly motivate anti-gun legislation.

But you have to, don’t you, because otherwise the facts themselves force us to consider such legislation. That’s what Issa has been hesitant to deal with from the start: The fact that his fearmongering about the border is demanding action from the legislature that his party and he in particular are unwilling to take.

So, for the sake of their partisan position, are they willing to allow Border Agents to die, civilians to be murdered? That’s the way your own logic would characterize your actions.

Then you link to an article (by the way, a flaming liberal newspaper whose goal is to protect obama and his screw-up’s), which says that Issa and other Republicans knew about the whole “Fast and Furious” program in April of 2010.

You constantly post material from flaming conservatives, and expect it to be taken seriously, but when you are confronted with material from a newspaper, you instantly attack it for its partisanship.

So, by your own logic, since bias is your excuse to dismiss factual claims, most of what you post here should be dismissed out of hand, facts notwithstanding.

You’re trying to win the argument simply for being a conservative delivering the conservative line. That might be a winning approach on RedState or on FreeRepublic, but that’s because everybody else feels beholden to the party anyways. People like me, like many independents, not so much so.

We don’t have any loyalties to your cause or movement that would lead us to accept your framing. So, in a way, this is a stupid thing to say. It proves next to nothing to anybody else about the fact in question, and just proceeds to announce your bias to the whole world.

I know it’s an unnamed source, but your spokesman comes right out and confirms for the record that such a briefing took place. So, at the very least, the unnamed source’s briefing exists, and at about the time he said it was. I know you’d like us to completely disregard this briefing, but that’s not going to happen.

And no, I didn’t quote the spokesman of the Committee that Issa chairs. I did provide you and the other readers a link, and fully expected that you would find those quotes, and I’d be pressed to defend them.

People are hitting me on the Weiner matter (that can hurt, you know) so let me ask the question: isn’t the defense a little bit funny, just like Weiner’s was? He attacked the administration, says the accusation is irresponsible and false, politicized it. But he declined to say what he was told.

Why? If a Congressman tweeting a photo of his featherless rooster means we’re demanding more information, why is this non-denial denial so forceful, yet so thin on corroborrating fact?

As far as Obama and the DOJ go, the proof would be in the pudding of whatever reports filtered up that far, and where in the chain of command these decisions went before the decision were made.

Instead of building this case, you’re simply assuming them as fact. Well, if we’re going to argue from ignorance here, then you tell me: what’s there to stop us from thinking that Issa may have known all along, and is just raising this ruckus now to cover his own butt?

Now such a claim may not be true, but by your logic, I’m entitled to consider it.

If Issa’s purpose is to illuminate the history and the accountable parties in this fiasco, why doesn’t he release or ask for the release of those briefings, redacted as necessary, so the Public can learn whether he had anything to hide (or by you claim, that he had nothing to hide?)

Your accusations against Issa, was that he was afraid to allow some to speak because he was afraid that it would lead to the need of more gun laws, and yet we see his reason was to keep the investigation on course.

Whose “we”, Kemosabe? You never proved that, you’re just asserting that. I’ve presented good evidence that there is lacking statutory authority to prosecute the gun-runners for their actual offense. If Congress doesn’t act, that fact and all the implications of that that act remain.

The left is so predictable, they hate to be accused of certain things and just get furious: they are against killing, but have no problem with abortion as a means to birth control; they love the troops, but work to defund them; they are for the 2nd amendment, but have never met a gun law that didn’t like; they are for freedom of speech, but want laws shutting down conservative talk radio and TV; and the list goes on.

Abortion as a means to birth control? Your party doesn’t even support educating kids about birth control. We do. We’re not as wild about pursuing abortions as your people are about ending them, and that’s a fact. Most of us would prefer people use birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms, and other devices, instead of going out and having an abortion after the fact. So, your first prediction goes bust.

Second prediction went bust half a decade ago. Given the chance, Democrats completely passed up the opportunity to defund the troops.

Third prediction? A majority of union members own a gun, and most Democrats are just not that interested in gun control. Contrary to your rhetoric, Gun Control is a very weak issue to drum up the base with. It’s nowhere near the top of the heap.

Fourth prediction? Based on a complete misunderstanding of the legal situation, and the law in question.

The Fairness doctrine, which again is something more Republicans are fervently against than Democrats are fervently for, is simply the requirement that either political programming be balanced between a variety of different views from the community, or that community members have the opportunity to respond, at about the same time, and to the same audience on the matter in question. It doesn’t even have to be for an equal amount of time.

But why would the Government have the right to require that of them?

Because radio stations and TV stations are licensed to the private radio station owners by the public. These airwaves, scarce as they are, belong to the public. Technical necessity means that the members of the public can’t all use these airwaves, so we give those radio stations a monopoly on part of the spectrum.

For the private gain that affords them, they are required to do a number of public services with that radio bandwidth, for the public whose airwaves these are to begin with.

Amazing how quick some conservatives are to fight for the right to use public resources for exclusively private gain. What Republicans and conservatives want to keep control of here isn’t theirs. It’s licensed to them from the government.

And no, it won’t shut your people down. What it might change is the block-scheduling of exclusively conservative voices, the broadcasting only of Conservative views. Some people might not want to have to deign to use the public’s radio bandwidth for something else than pushing their private views. Others are concerned that having a mix of views might reduce the effectiveness that comes with having your propaganda unadulterated.

But it won’t actually shut your folks down. That’s just the same sort of hysterics your folks get up in over gun control, healthcare reform, DADT, well… everything!

Instead of talking reasonably with people, your folks just push BS exaggerations about our beliefs that are meant to convince people we’ll go further than we really do.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2011 3:57 PM
Comment #324811


Ct, apparently the human race has reached a point in evolution where natural selection is causing a lot of mutations. How else can you explain liberals and progressives?

If some Americans choose to spend their hard earned cash on artillery pieces and shells, including chemical, biological, and nuclear war heads, the Second Amendment gives them that right.

What are the more stringent gun control laws and how will they lead to the confiscation of all the guns? I’m assuming that chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons were banned by some other liberal president.

Posted by: jlw at June 22, 2011 4:01 PM
Comment #324812

stephen

there is no need for the fairness doctrine anymore. with satellite radio, hd radio, the internet, and an abundance of other forums, the means for expressing and responding to political opinions, and commentary is endless. the pushing of the reintroduction of the fairness doctrine is nothing more than an attempt by the left to commandeer popular conservtive talk shows in order to push opinions and political ideas that can’t survive on thier own in the market place. while you may have the right to your political speech, you don’t have the right to force others to listen to it or provide the forum for it.

Posted by: dbs at June 22, 2011 4:25 PM
Comment #324813

dbs-
Is it the marketplace that leads to talk radio being wall to wall conservatives and right wingers, even in markets that have considerable liberal populations?

It’s a circular argument, one that ignores the reality that it wasn’t the marketplace that made talk radio often exclusively conservative, but the managers and owners of those stations, often with the funding and the help of right wing establishment organizations.

This, with a public resource.

I believe in a real marketplace, where one group is not allowed to dominate the public’s range of choices. I believe in a marketplace of ideas, where ideas aren’t simply allowed to be hothouse flowers, but instead have to stand up to arguments from all sides.

Of course it will hurt Republicans to have this end, in the short term. But then they would learn to appeal to people better. When you can narrow your audience to just your supporters, you both help calcify your own position by making it dangerous to deviate from it, and you help coddle yourself and your supporters in terms of dealing with the outside world.

It’s time you and your ideas started competing in the real world, without all those artificial advantages.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2011 4:37 PM
Comment #324814

stephen

“I believe in a real marketplace, where one group is not allowed to dominate the public’s range of choices.”


and i believe in a market place where people can choose what they want to listen to, or buy for that matter. and not be forced to listen to opinions, or buy products they choose not to because someone believes that they have a right to force them to do so in the name of fairness.

if liberal opinion and talk are that popular then there are more than adequate outlets for them to be heard by those who WANT to listen. this is not the 1950s where there are a finite number of vehicles for expressing political opinion,and we should not pretend that it is.

Posted by: dbs at June 22, 2011 5:04 PM
Comment #324815

stephen

“Of course it will hurt Republicans to have this end, in the short term. But then they would learn to appeal to people better. When you can narrow your audience to just your supporters, you both help calcify your own position by making it dangerous to deviate from it, and you help coddle yourself and your supporters in terms of dealing with the outside world.”


what will hurt republicans is to allow democrats to dictate the terms under which thier meessege is presented. i would prefer the listening audience do that by voting with thier feet. this is the only true way to gage the popularity of the messege. democrats know this and it is why the fight to control the forum and its format.

Posted by: dbs at June 22, 2011 5:14 PM
Comment #324816

What ever happened to Air America, Al Gore TV, Alec Baldwins shot at radio, not to mention MSNBC and their liberal heads. Gone, gone, gone, and going. SD proves my point; all you hear from the left is freedom of speech and how they support it, but in reality work to destroy freedom of speech. Let’s just use taxpayer dollars to pay for cramming liberal bullshit down the throats of America. If PBS and NPR had to support themselves though capialism, they wouldn’t exist either.

It must be terrible to be a liberal and not be able to find anything to be happy about. Lefties are the most miserable bunch I have ever seen; they hate their lives and the only goal is to make everyone else as miserable as they are…

Liberals are parasites on society; they produce nothing and yet want to live off of what hard working people do. I will give an example: they are so concerned about people who smoke and now want to post graphic pictures on the packs of cigarettes. If cigarettes are a narcotic and if they kill people, then just outlaw them. There are many other narcotics that are outlawed. But in reality, they don’t want to outlaw cigarettes, because that would mean a loss of taxes and court settlements. So they don’t really care about people; they really care about revenue. By the way, I don’t smoke and don’t really care who does. It’s their life to throw away. But I bet satistics would show more deaths in America as the result of smoking than as the result of accidental deaths or murders comitted by legal citizens owning legal guns.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 22, 2011 5:44 PM
Comment #324818

SD

I challenge you to read the transcript of the one day of hearings and future hearings on this matter.

One person not mentioned much is a lawyer from DOJ who sent a requested set of papers to Chairman Issa. The first 16 pages were all black. Everything was redacted. That is great cooperation from DOJ and this nit wit attorney who testified under oath untruths.

You just need to learn the facts and quit trying to assume, surmise, guess, outright distort, spin or interject irrelevant material into this discussion. I know that is asking a lot from a liberal/progressive/socialist. But in every man’s life their are multiple times to man up. For you this is one of those moments.

Posted by: tom humes at June 22, 2011 5:49 PM
Comment #324823

SD writes; “This, with a public resource.

I believe in a real marketplace, where one group is not allowed to dominate the public’s range of choices. I believe in a marketplace of ideas…”

What an unadulterated bullshit comment. Here goes the lib in charge talking about group rights again. No doubt SD’s idea of a “real” marketplace would be liberal radio all the time. I would guess his comment means that talk radio is not a real marketplace because it is mostly populated by moderates and conservatives.

Perhaps SD doesn’t understand markets and why they exist. Liberals are so brain dead that they can’t believe anyone would disagree with their socialist, undemocratic, and non-constitutional beliefs. For them, if they think it…it must be right.

Commercial radio is supported by…guess what…commercials. Businesses wishing to advertise their products put their money into commercials where there is the greatest listening audience. Talk radio is popular with moderates and conservatives because they make up the majority of Americans.

Liberals have tried and failed many times to attract an audience with their crap. No listeners, no money earning commercials. With only 20% of the population being liberal/socialist, they sit on the sidelines looking for government to level a playing field that is already level.

SD often talks about group rights when what he is referring to is group needs. He sees rights everywhere a group need exists. His pathetic group of vanishing liberals need government group rights to keep them from disappearing entirely. Only with government intervention in private business can these liberal idiots force Americans to listen to their crap on the radio. They are entirely bankrupt of ideas that appeal to the voting majority.

Stupid is what stupid does. If brains were gunpowder, some liberals wouldn’t have enough to blow their nose.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 22, 2011 6:47 PM
Comment #324833

RF, this is why conservative talk show hosts like Rush and GB have audiences that run about 20-30 million, on a daily basis. Obamba can’t even get that many to listen to his teleprompter speechs televised on all the channels, LOL.

I must admit, you and Tom Humes have Daugherty’s number down pat.

I bet the socialist liberals and Obamba can’t quite figure out what is going on; after all these things that they have done for America, and they are still dropping like a rock. I heard a poll today, that only 35% of voters would vote for obama for a 2nd term. I realize we have another 1 1/2 years, but it can only get worse for him. What we have is a man who has no idea what he is doing and America is learning. Except for SD and some of the other socialist writers on WB, I figure there will be a mass exodus from obamba in the next year. We might even see democrat senators voting to repeal obamacare:)

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 22, 2011 9:43 PM
Comment #324834

CT

And the heat is only at a low level. When the liar-in-chief gets wound up a bit more and SD must support him, I will gladly crank the heat up.

Posted by: tom humes at June 22, 2011 9:58 PM
Comment #324840

dbs-
Prove that Talk Radio’s Rightward trend was purely a reaction to ratings, and then we can talk. Otherwise, you’re confusing an audience faced with a monopolized industry making a choice that really is no choice, as opposed to people having chosen Limbaugh and the others, when the reality is, they often operated as the beneficiaries of Right-Wing foundation cash.

I think what really happened is that audiences did vote with their feet. They simply stopped listening to talk radio, and turned to other media. Recent failures of talk radio hosts on the left are counterbalanced by Liberal’s stellar performance in the blogosphere, which Republicans have been trying to imitate every since.

Conservativethinker-
MSNBC is still here, and a number of their hosts now have a national audience, far beyond the limited confines of AM Radio, which is really a dying medium for the most part. Current TV is still going, and in fact scored better ratings for Keith Olbermann than CNN got in the same slot.

Air America? Look, the Democrat’s Demographics are mainly Baby Boomers and younger, people who don’t tend to listen to AM Radio. It worked for generations that grew up on the medium, and who just kept on listening, but Demographically, it’s dying.

Meanwhile, what did Democrats do? Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Five-Thirty-Eight, The Plum Line, FireDogLake, The Huffington Post, in Part, and of course the Great Orange Satan itself, DailyKos. Those are just a selection.

We’re not gone, we’ve taken our fight to a medium where you don’t need a license to have a voice. Who do you think you’re fighting right now? A Netroots Democrat, who came of age, politically, on the internet, and who is entirely use to arguing against people like you, and being aggressive about it.

As for PBS and NPR? You can count the government’s contribution to them in the millions. The rest is private foundations and citizens. And to what end? To the end of finding interesting stuff that wasn’t pre-selected to fit some marketer’s bias. To have the chance to run into something interesting that other channels and other stations think you’re too stupid or too mindless to enjoy.

I mean, hell, is it like commercial broadcasters are getting squeezed out here? No! Quite the opposite! You just can’t stand there being ANYTHING in this culture that isn’t determined by a profit motive. And you know what? That’s real sad, if you ask me. Past cultures understood that greed could not be what underlay everything, that there was some good in there being a space for things that were not valued because they could bring in a buck, but for other reasons.

It must be terrible to be a liberal and not be able to find anything to be happy about. Lefties are the most miserable bunch I have ever seen; they hate their lives and the only goal is to make everyone else as miserable as they are…

You don’t write like a happy man. Your writings are filled with hatred and fear. Me? I might seem a little dour here, but it’s mainly because I have to put up with people who are calling me parasites, and other stuff like that. I think you’d encounter a lot more happy Democrats, if you didn’t go out of your way to try and make them miserable!

I find it curious that you give the examples of cigarettes. You’re quick to say liberals want to take away our freedoms, but now you lambast us for putting those graphic pictures on cigarettes. Why? Shouldn’t people have the information they need to make that free decision? Hmmm? Tell me you wouldn’t fight a cigarette ban, that your people wouldn’t resist it. If so, then what’s the problem? what good is the kind of freedom from government interference you’re describing if it all amounts to just being the clueless mark of a bunch of companies that will lie and cheat you to separate you from your money, in this case, in the service of reducing your lifespan considerably.

Why is it that Republicans seem to put their greatest effort into fighting for the very things that will kill them quicker?

Royal Flush-
The airwaves are a public resource. Nobody can own the radio spectrum, and if we all tried to use it at once, we’d end up squandering it from interference. So, the system has to be artificially narrowed in its voices in the first place, in order to be useful. You’re arguing that private individuals should be able to use that public resource to promote a private agenda to the exception of everybody else’s, and this after the government gave it to them.

Yeah, that’s right, the government should grant your side free advantages. How fair. Never mind what the people of a community being served by that station want or need.

You know, the problem with your mentality here is pretty simple: yours is that other golden rule, where he who has the gold makes the rules. Rather than truly being about the end of big government, it’s really just about reinforcing the power and wealth of the few who already have it, rather than moderating their behavior and promoting the general welfare (the condition, not the entitlement program).

We don’t need to help those people! They’ll always be the people best able to help themselves. But what they’ll do is that they’ll amplify their advantages, and then leave everybody else to struggle even more than if we had not helped them.

They asked us to dismantle the protections of the new deal, with the notion that things would improve for everybody. instead, we’re worse off than we’ve been in years, especially compared to them.

My philosophy is simple. Capitalism moderated and modified by a government that is elected by a society where the middle class and poor stand up for themselves, and their interests, rather than deferring to the elites.

No doubt SD’s idea of a “real” marketplace would be liberal radio all the time.

Guess again. I listen to some NPR, but I much prefer music stations, for the most part. But I like having the choice. I’ve observed that commercial radio and television, are just as capable of losing audiences and failing to depart from the old and tires stuff as anybody, and when the deficiency is industry-wide, it can be very difficult to find something worth watching.

Perhaps SD doesn’t understand markets and why they exist. Liberals are so brain dead that they can’t believe anyone would disagree with their socialist, undemocratic, and non-constitutional beliefs. For them, if they think it…it must be right.

Perhaps people are so collossally stupid and unable to decide things for themselves, that you must come along and teach everybody what they must think and do!

Good heavens, man, you really don’t register how obnoxious you come off as, and if you do, you don’t register it as a bad thing, as an impediment to people seriously considering any concessions to you.

Commercial radio is supported by…guess what…commercials.

You should have waited until I found my fainting couch for that particular revelation.

You know, there are plenty of commerical television and media outlets chasing advertising bucks, bringing people what the marketing division says they’ll like. Does everything have to be a rat race?

Talk radio is popular with moderates and conservatives because they make up the majority of Americans.

I take it you’ve never seen actual television, much less radio ratings.

I also take it that whatever logic classes you might have taken are long forgotten. That’s a circular argument, if I ever saw one. Ah, Talk radio is popular because most people are in its target audience!

Again, have you actually seen real ratings from these shows? As a percentage of the population, Talk Radio listeners are a narrow, narrow market.

Stupid is what stupid does. If brains were gunpowder, some liberals wouldn’t have enough to blow their nose.

All this talk about how terrible liberals are. But telling the world liberals are terrible only goes so far, and so does heaping praise on the GOP and its actions.

The reality is, if stupid is what stupid does, the stupid had burned the Republicans pretty bad. You’re on the run from a decades worth of crap policy decisions, so you have to make the Democrats seem as vile, stupid, and otherwise undesirable as you can, because your folks are no sterling examples of statesman yourselves.

You’re out of ideas, you’re out of rational reasons to be enthusiastic, and you’re out of real leaders.

And you know what? Sitting here throwing insults and vilification our way won’t make your party any better.

Conservativethinker, on that last comment-
LOL. That’s all I can say. You just have no idea how much goodwill and patience your party has squandered in just the last six months. Your party members are quickly putting themselves into a position where Democrats will have to make up the difference in any Congressional vote to raise the debt limit, which will get done. Meaning, a replay of the 2010 budget showdown.

Your party’s apologized for its leaders mistakes for so long, they’ve forgotten how to hold their leaders accountable, and so you get screw-ups like Sarah Palin, who just quit her Bus trip to show what a Presidential contender she was halfway through.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2011 11:16 PM
Comment #324843

Looks like a majority don’t want to raise the debt ceiling:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/15/6868256-nbcwsj-poll-debt-ceiling-numbers-depend-on-how-you-ask-the-question

Of course, we know SS and military pay will not be affected by not raising the debt ceiling

Wednesday, June 22, RCP

Direction of Country Bloomberg Right Direction 26, Wrong Track 66 Wrong Track +40

Direction of Country Associated Press/GfK Right Direction 33, Wrong Track 63 Wrong Track +30

Direction of Country Rasmussen Reports Right Direction 26, Wrong Track 65 Wrong Track +39

The right direction are the 20% of socialists in the country.


The only apologies I have heard is when the Bamster apologize to foreign leaders for America’s evils..

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 23, 2011 12:45 AM
Comment #324845

stephen

“Recent failures of talk radio hosts on the left are counterbalanced by Liberal’s stellar performance in the blogosphere, which Republicans have been trying to imitate every since.”


thanks for making my argument for me. by your very own addmission here in this statemnet, there is no need for the fairness doctrine.


“Prove that Talk Radio’s Rightward trend was purely a reaction to ratings,”

prove it isn’t. you said yourself in the above pragraph that recent attempts by the left to capitalize on the talk radio format have failed. radio stations need advertising dollars to survive, and without listeners those dollars are hard to come by. that pretty much says it all.

Posted by: dbs at June 23, 2011 5:05 AM
Comment #324854

Conservativethinker-
If popularity made things smart, your tax cuts would have made the government more revenue, Iraq and Afghanistan would be completely won long ago, and Holywood Blockbusters would all be Oscar Nominees without exception.

As I recall, not bailing out the banks when we first realized their balance sheets were going to hell was popular, too. Too bad the consequences haven’t been receieved so well.

Even if you’re so cold and cynical to only see this in political terms, you should remember what happened to the GOP after the economic collapse. When people see Republicans **** things up, they don’t reward them, no matter how popular the cause was.

It’s funny, but reading the poll you cite, the plurality against becomes a plurality for when people read that there are actual consequences!

Of course, we know SS and military pay will not be affected by not raising the debt ceiling

Again, who’s we, Kemosabe? Not raising the debt ceiling will have a devastating effect on the budget all around. Not being able to raise it means we can only pay out what we get in taxes. Your social security checks and military paychecks come out of the treasury.

At the very least, we’re dealing with a disruption to those checks. And really, they’re right, it will tighten up an already tight economy, sending us back into recession.

The problem seems to be that any time somebody tells you something is dumb, you take that as a challenge rather than a warning. Not only that, but you push a whole bunch of people into thinking that it’s the smart thing to do.

But dumb is dumb.

dbs-
It’s the principle of the thing. Just because it’s no longer such a critical thing doesn’t mean it remains right or just for a few private citizens to silence the voices of their community, whom they hold a public resource in trust for.

prove it isn’t. you said yourself in the above pragraph that recent attempts by the left to capitalize on the talk radio format have failed. radio stations need advertising dollars to survive, and without listeners those dollars are hard to come by. that pretty much says it all.

First, let’s establish what a ratings point means:

“We used to think people listened to just 3 radio stations. But what we found out (with PPMs)[personal people meters, devices worn by listeners] was they listen to 5 to 6 stations. So it’s had a negative impact on ratings. A ratings point is 1 percent of the population. A share is 1 percent of the radio listenership.” Translation: a station may pull a 10 share - 10 percent of people listening - but if they’re listening to twice as many stations it can cut the time they spending listening by half. “So it’s dilluted the time spent by listeners, and air personalities don’t seem as important as music formats.”

Okay, so one ratings point is one percent of the population, and one share point is one percent of the listeners.

Where does that leave your folks?

Not in a good position.

A look at radio’s PPM ratings for the largest talk radio market in the nation bears this out. An apples-to-apples comparison of ratings between November ’09 and November ’10 in the New York area shows that Rush Limbaugh’s ratings on WABC declined from 5.4 to 5.0—despite the crescendo of a GOP election year landslide. Likewise, year-end to year-end comparisons of the crucial 24 to 55 demographic show that Rush declined from 3.7 to 2.6—while his packaged follow-up acts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin narrowly declined and flat-lined, respectively. And Hannity was dropped from his Philadelphia radio station along with Beck last month after being dropped from his syndicator in Salt Lake City (!) last year before finding a new home in the area.

PPM is the new method of gauging radio market share that registers actual radio waves instead of relying on the very analog process of filing out forms that allowed fans to essentially ‘vote’ for their favorite radio hosts rather than mark what they were actually listening to—what Randall Bloomquist refers to as ‘the emperor has no clothes’ impact of PPM.

But really, even before you factor in the effect of these Personal People Meters, you have to notice: your ratings in that market are being gauged in the single digits.

It gets worse. There’s another reason NPR often gets targeted by you folks:

Envy.

Its other uses can be fairly pedestrian too: ball games and repetitive, if remarkably effective, right-wing commercial talk radio. Rush Limbaugh is the radio ratings champ; according to the industry’s trade journal he reaches 14.25 million listeners in an average week. Sean Hannity, working the same turf, trails him slightly.

But an equally large audience turns to the part of the dial where public radio in its various forms can be found. Public radio claims at least 5 percent of the radio market. National Public Radio’s flagship news programs, Morning Edition and All Things Considered, featuring news and commentary alongside in-depth reports and stories that can stretch over twenty minutes—are the second- and third-most-popular radio programs in the country, each drawing about 13 million unique listeners in the course of the week.

Rush has to be very “entertaining” to match NPR, despite the fact that NPR’s reputation is more as a trusted news source than as a source of sensationalized, hyperpartisan heavy breathing. The very “boring pointy-headed” liberals that are supposed to be so unpopular are instead roughly neck and neck with him, and if you take the previous link seriously, they’re beginning to lose the race.

And they are likely to blame themselves. Conservatives have become one note, their demographic is aging out of the crucial young adult to middle aged market, and they haven’t succeeded in selling themselves.

There’s another point I would make: maybe the reason for the disparity in talk radio isn’t so much a factor of Liberals not being able to sell liberalism. Maybe the truth is, liberals don’t want to be dictated to from above.

I know I listen to NPR, because the material is actually news to me, much of the time I tune in. You get reports from all over the world, about different programs, charities, scientific and technological things. You beat people up over the liberal media, but the selling point of NPR for people like me isn’t that it’s liberal, it’s that it’s informative, expands what you know beyond the usual rather narrow news coverage that modern media fall into.

I can feel, when I’m listening, like I’m being trusted to think for myself, rather than getting my opinion fed to me.

Honestly, I don’t watch the MSNBC lineup all that often. Why? It’s not that I’m especially estranged from them in political terms, it’s simply that I don’t particularly feel the need to have my views spoon-fed to me. I think this is a common sentiment among Democrats, and part of the reason that the rather participatory internet is part of the recent renaissance of the progressive and liberal movements. You don’t just read things on Daily Kos, you comment, and your comments get comments.

Something like what we got here. And no, it’s no where near as genteel as this place, but the point is, you have to defend your point of view of view in a place like that.

I don’t think Republicans or Right-Wingers are incapable of this. I just think their culture hasn’t encouraged it for a long time. It used to be that you had folks like William F. Buckley out there, people who could really take apart somebody on logical grounds. Nowadays you have cheap showmen (literally, since they call themselves entertainers), who just engage in rhetorical, perjorative bullying on the left. It’s made the right wing lazy, and worse, out of touch.

I think the left doesn’t want that product, that constant feed of opinion page rhetoric, quite so much as the Republicans do. There’s some market for it, but what most Liberals want is the information and the elbow room to make their mind up for themselves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2011 11:45 AM
Comment #324855

SD

Much of what you said in your latest tripe is what you got off of your tape recorder. The tape is pretty much wearing thin at this point. You keep rehashing the same thing over and over and over. Half of what you say is just rhetorical speech that has no target and says nothing. Ho-Hum.

You double speak. You have no clarity in your argument. You type lines of words that sometimes have no connection to the topic.

So, have you taken me up on the challenge of reading the transcript of the hearing that prompted you to put this hack job together? You probably won’t because you will find revelation in the documents. And that revelation will show you to be absolutely out of sync. This event is far from over. When DOJ heads start rolling that will be a further reason to learn more facts concerning this horrible episode of America at work. So, are you going to continue in the pathetic circumstances of those in this criminal enterprise or are you going to man up and learn the facts and denounce those who perpetrated this evil upon the American taxpayers and citizens. After all we are talking about our government figures participating in the murder of 2 federal law enforcement officers.

Posted by: tom humes at June 23, 2011 12:02 PM
Comment #324858

Fortified with lots of black coffee I managed to read the entire script SD posted about radio airwaves belonging to the public, and due to public ownership, must be shared along political dividing lines.

His flawed argument appears to state that if 20% of the country is liberal, they must share in 20% of commercial talk radio political comment. His liberal thought process and demands for “fairness” seems to belie the reality that liberals are not being denied ownership of any radio station in the country. If they were, would they not be filing lawsuits?

Why don’t liberals purchase radio stations and then air their liberal political views? Nearly everything is for sale in the private market if the price is right.

However, when one understands the liberal mind, it is simple to comprehend their view, which is, that everything belongs to government and thus, must be shared equally by all.

This brings us back to my frequent arguments with SD over “rights” versus “needs”. Liberals don’t have a right to air their political views on a privately owned radio station without paying the fees charged for airing that content. Consequently, they must petition government to make their “need” to air their views free of charge via commercial radio a “right”.

What they can not accomplish the old fashioned way, by competition, they wish to have awarded by government. And this demand by liberals for having their “needs” met doesn’t stop with the public airwaves. They have been successful in converting “needs” into “rights” in many areas of our national life. Fortunately, those who actually pay the price for liberals to fill their needs are beginning to feel the pinch on their own constitutional “rights”…the “rights” of private property.

This battle over “needs” versus “rights” is center stage in the minds of most Americans who will vote in the next election.

Will liberals be able to convince Americans to continue funding “needs”…going more trillions into debt, or…will the electorate define and approve true needs (food, clothing, shelter) and diminish the outlay for other needs.

“Rights” as defined in our constitution are limited by that document. Needs, on the other hand, as defined by liberals, are without limit. Fulfilling needs (beyond those basic to life) have kept many dem/libs in office. Defending “rights” replaced many of them in 2010 and will replace even more in 2012.

SD is fully aware that the endless funding of “needs”, identified by liberals, is coming to an end. Those footing the bill for those “needs” are fully awake and will not tolerate any more artificial “needs” based spending and debt.

The handwriting is all over the wall for those who can read and comprehend. The national government will follow our states in cutting back on wasteful “needs” spending.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 23, 2011 3:00 PM
Comment #324859

stephen

“It’s the principle of the thing. Just because it’s no longer such a critical thing doesn’t mean it remains right or just for a few private citizens to silence the voices of their community,”


the voices aren’t silenced, you said so yourself when you made that arrogant comment about how the left has dominated the internet forum, and how lousy the right is at replicating that success. well the same holds true for talk radio, but it is the left who can only dream about replictaing that success in that forum. you can pontificate about principles all you want, but it doesn’t give you the right to force privately held radio stations to provide you a free forum to air you side. there are already laws in place that provide for equal air time for political candidates. there should be no law forcing anyone to listen to your opinions. priciples do not necessarily equal rights.

Posted by: dbs at June 23, 2011 4:07 PM
Comment #324860

stephen

“There’s another reason NPR often gets targeted by you folks:”

nope. just one. the portion of its budget funded by the taxpayers. remove that small portion of its budget, and there’s no longer an objection.

Posted by: dbs at June 23, 2011 4:16 PM
Comment #324862

tom humes-
When I make such an accusation towards someone, I provide proof, or at least a reasonable argument to fit the facts.

And yes, once I find a fact, I will continue to reference it. Why? The truth doesn’t change, unlike some people’s stories. My strategy is to nail people down, force them to either concede, or undo their credibility by going counterfactual.

Reading the hearing statements, I get a picture of a system that was dysfunctional on more than one side. You should re-read it, and this time cut out the political junk, and look at the facts. Yes, the ATF folks screwed up. But where did I ever say that was alright. If the folks who okayed that resign, just deserts.

The real problem in the ATF, it seems, is that the ATF leadership took big risks, and did so stupidly. But the problem in the ATF is not the only problem that existed in dealing with this gun problem. There were US Attorneys unwilling to prosecute many of these cases. The problems with the laws look to be real. Like I predicted, the forms required people to say whether they were buying for themselves or not. The transcript says that others mistated addresses.

But the testimony does confirmed that straw buying in and of itself wasn’t illegal, and that people with clean records were recruited for, so they could pass FBI checks. It also confirms that the punishments were light for lying on the forms. The guy did say that you really couldn’t give anybody doing that real stiff jail time, and that people wouldn’t prosecute it.

In your political focus, you’re not paying attention to the problems as a whole. You’re simply trying to make this a Presidential level scandal, and you don’t want to be distracted as to whether gun laws are too weak, or whether there are problems in prosecution or whatever that legislation could help.

As for the murder of the two border agents?

When you strip away all your self-righteous anger from it, it boils down to the ATF making a serious mistake that put guns they were tracking in the hands of the Cartel. That’s what it boils down to. The rest is political theatre. Those border agents would likely have found themselves dead at the end of other guns. The rightfully embarrassing and stupid thing is that it was guns we were watching. But does it get much better if its guns we weren’t watching, couldn’t watch?

Does it get much better when the people making the accusations were briefed on the program they were staging this melodrama over, or that they won’t vote for the laws that would help stem the flow of illegal guns over the border?

This is what I hate, really: politics built to benefit a party, without providing any real benefit to the people. Politics that puts the pressure on government to improve, but denies it the means to make those improvements. Hollow BS, in short.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2011 5:08 PM
Comment #324864

“Let me quote an unnamed source, “The Obama administration and the DOJ used “Fast and Furious” as a platform and excuse to place more stringent gun control laws on Americans, with the ultimate goal of complete confiscation of guns””

Baloney! Michelle Malkin, hardly a liberal, has a brief but interesting backgound on “Fast and Furious” in the attached link. It turns out that “Fast and Furious” was an offshoot of operation “Gunrunner” initiated by the Bush administration in 2005 and generously funded by Congress on a bi-partisan manner. http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2011/03/30/project_gunrunner_obamas_stimulus-funded_border_nightmare

So, it was a Bush administration’s program continued by the Obama administration. That might explain why a Republican appointee holdover from the Bush administration was named acting director.

However valid some of the criticisms of “Gunrunner” and “Fast and Furious” are, they have nothing to do with some liberal plot to pass stringent gun laws or confiscate guns from Americans. Unless, of course, the Bush administration was in on this plot.

Posted by: Rich at June 23, 2011 5:10 PM
Comment #324867

For those interested in the facts regarding ATF’s Operation Gunrunner, the parent program of “Fast and Furious”, please review the attached Office of Inspector General’s report. It is clear from reading the report that ATF’s gun sting operations expanded dramatically during the Bush administration and large appropriations in the last Bush budget for 2009 were supplemented with stimulus money by the Obama administration. The point is clear, this was a conservative initiative of the Bush administration continued by the Obama administration. http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0906.pdf

Posted by: Rich at June 23, 2011 5:24 PM
Comment #324868

Royal Flush-

His flawed argument appears to state that if 20% of the country is liberal, they must share in 20% of commercial talk radio political comment. His liberal thought process and demands for “fairness” seems to belie the reality that liberals are not being denied ownership of any radio station in the country. If they were, would they not be filing lawsuits?

Appears to state? Appears?

First, a little reminder: Conservatives are minority.
Second, another reminder: Liberals are not the only group besides conservatives. Moderates and independents, too, deserve their voice.
Third, this holds true for Democrats, too, who are not just liberals, but moderates and conservatives as well.

And a big fricking fact-check for you, buddy-boy: The Fairness doctrine should not be confused with the equal time doctrine.

As for being denied ownership, that’s not the claim, nor is it the issue. The main issue is the ownership of the airwaves, which by the law of the land belongs to us as a nation. To establish the radio bands we use for telecommunications, a lot of people had to give up the right to transmit on what is essentially THEIR radio spectrum. The government essentially takes all of our property here, and licenses it on our behalf to that station owner in a given location.

I know first hand from my education that there are a ****-ton of regulations that govern the usage of those airwaves by those stations. It’s not a matter of free speech, but a public trust. They don’t own that frequency, they license it from us.

You talk about us buying stations and flooding it with our views, but is that really the right way to do things? To have each station become a fiefdom of their owner, to be propagandized to?

You imply that you understand the liberal mind, but really, you couldn’t know less if you tried. I don’t want to simply have Liberal stations and Republican stations throwing propaganda all over their broadcast market. As much as I agree with myself, I know for a fact we’re not perfect, that we can err, that our policies can screw up. We don’t need more propagandists.

My liberal mind tells me that as much as a station owner might profit from running things just the way they like, that spectrum space is a public resource that should be used for the public good. If Rush Limbaugh gets three hours to drill his points home, somebody should get fifteen minutes to rebut his arguments. Or maybe instead of just pushing a one-sided show, the station should broadcast shows where a conservatives and liberals debate each other, or where members of the community get to discuss matters.

The point is to have the people engaged in their media, not have somebody dump their views, liberal or conservative, on the market from above.

“Rights” as defined in our constitution are limited by that document. Needs, on the other hand, as defined by liberals, are without limit. Fulfilling needs (beyond those basic to life) have kept many dem/libs in office. Defending “rights” replaced many of them in 2010 and will replace even more in 2012.

Ninth Amendment, RF. Read it. What does it say?

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You got that? You’ve misread the constitution! In your effort to declare our agenda unconstitutional, with that pitiful melodramatic schtick about “rights” being confused with “needs”, you’ve overlooked that critical passage.

The Ninth Amendment was written precisely to oppose your kind of authoritarian interpretation here, which says that if a right is not listed, it does not exist. Simply put, any right you want can be legislated, so long as its consistent with the Constitution.

But if it’s not a right that is constitutionaly guaranteed, then of course statutory action can undo statutory action. We can redefine the laws to create more rights. You can take those rights when you’re in the majority, and repeal them. Both sides will be held accountable for their judgments along those lines.

That’s Democracy, at least in part. So don’t try to use the Constitution to bludgeon us over the laws and rights we would pass, because here, you have gone further than the constitution in your limitations, so those limits do not have the pre-emptive strength of constitutional prohibition just on general principle alone.

dbs-
Actually, your people aren’t content to have the internet be such a free place. They’ve pushed rules that take the common carrier status off of the Internet Service Providers. We’re trying to restore net neutrality, but Republican seem to balk at the idea of people getting treated equally in terms of internet traffic.

But also, that privately held radio station, as I mentioned before, depends on the publicly held airwaves for its broadcasts to the public. If they were an internet-only station, they could give a crap less, but since they’re using public airwaves, they should be obligated, for their gains, to do some public services, and act in the public benefit with their broadcasts.

As for NPR and PBS?

Yeah, right. When I hear about NPR from your side, it’s usually not its funding that comes first as an objection. It’s the perceived politics.

Rich-
Now the folks on the right are going to tell you to stop beating up Bush. Well, that’s par for the course. You know, the irony here, the head of the ATF currently serving is an acting director. The Republicans have done their best to stall Obama’s appointments, meaning in many cases, the people who are in charge weren’t Obama’s selections.

The irony of the approach the GOP takes is that in real terms, they’re complaining about any number of policies they themselves came up with, which effectively makes their Obama-blaming Bush-blaming in disguise.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2011 5:46 PM
Comment #324869


Liberals would love to have the next election be about the right wings definition of needs verses rights instead of jobs.

A large majority of Americans aren’t spending one minute of their time listening to conservative talk radio or NPR.

NPR is much more entertaining and informative, but conservative talk radio provides a venue for comic relief.

When I heard that quite a few conservatives thought Stephen Colbert was a funny conservative, I nearly cracked up.

Royal, if 80% of the people say leave SS and Medicare alone, what are they? Conservatives? Liberals may be a 20% minority but they aren’t the only minority.

Let your politicians proudly state how things are going to be if the people will only give the Republicans control of the government again. DRAFT CANTOR as your presidential candidate.

By the way, if that is an example of the accuracy of your mind reading abilities, you shouldn’t bother taking your act on the road.

Posted by: jlw at June 23, 2011 5:51 PM
Comment #324873

SD writes; “I know first hand from my education that there are a ****-ton of regulations that govern the usage of those airwaves by those stations. It’s not a matter of free speech, but a public trust. They don’t own that frequency, they license it from us.”

There’s SD’s “tell” again, resorting to ****words when he is defending the indefensible.

When government grants a license, they convey rights and privileges with that license that allow the licensee to do whatever they wish in keeping within the rules and regulations. SD is asking for those rules to be changed to favor his liberal group “needs”.

Then, to demonstrate his socialist leanings he writes; “You talk about us buying stations and flooding it with our views, but is that really the right way to do things?”

Simple answer…YES, in this country under our constitution. It’s called freedom, just in case your education didn’t teach you that. It is so very simple minded to think that owning the station governs the content aired. Sponsors purchase commercial time on programs that attract an audience. “Flooding” the airwaves with unpopular programing would not be profitable. But then, socialists don’t give a damn about what people want, only what they want.

SD then writes an almost unbelievable statement…”Or maybe instead of just pushing a one-sided show, the station should broadcast shows where a conservatives and liberals debate each other, or where members of the community get to discuss matters.”

He just doesn’t get it. If one has a license to operate a radio station, they are free to choose the programing. But the commie/socialist view is directly opposite. License them, but control the content. This view is common in communist countries, not so much in the US, except for the liberal power mongers.

SD would like to use the Ninth Amendment to declare that “needs” are rights. Legislating “needs” do not make them “rights” except in the liberal mind that must extort money (private property) from those that have some to give to those who will vote for them.

As I have said repeatedly, our “rights” do not come from government, but from a higher power. Needs can be legislated, “rights” can not.

So, SD declares the “need” exists for liberals to have their political message aired by privately owned radio stations for free. And then, his liberal mind calls that a “right”. How pathetic.

jlw writes; “Royal, if 80% of the people say leave SS and Medicare alone, what are they? Conservatives? Liberals may be a 20% minority but they aren’t the only minority.”

Ignorant comment. The vast majority of “the people”, except for jlw apparently, realize that without fixing SS and Medicare and Medicaid this country will be bankrupt. But then, perhaps that is the liberal agenda.


Posted by: Royal Flush at June 23, 2011 6:48 PM
Comment #324876

stephen

“Yeah, right. When I hear about NPR from your side, it’s usually not its funding that comes first as an objection. It’s the perceived politics.”


if it was funded through purely private sources, its political leaning would not be of any concern. so you see the main objection is not its left leaning bias. it is the fact that bias is funded through tax dollars which the last checked are not voluntary.

if liberals are so upset about the success of conservative talk radio, then the obvious solution would be to purchase air time and say what you want to say. but let’s be honest, it isn’t that you can’t get your messege out. it is that no one is listening, so you have to find a way to interfere with the messege in which you don’t agree, by passing asinine laws that allow you to run interference. this isn’t about equal time it’s about shutting up your opposition through legal road blocks.

BTW, the last time i checked more people described themselves as conservatives as opposed to liberals.

Posted by: dbs at June 23, 2011 7:18 PM
Comment #324878

RF,

“Flooding” the airwaves with unpopular programing would not be profitable.

Then why do infomercials exist?

Methinks there is more than one way for broadcasters to earn money; and some of them don’t include attracting the largest number of viewers possible.


If one has a license to operate a radio station, they are free to choose the programing.

Not necessarily. When was the last time you saw pornography broadcast over the air?

dbs,

if it was funded through purely private sources, its political leaning would not be of any concern.

The overwhelming majority of NPR’s revenues come from private sources. Keep in mind that one of the many things public radio does nowadays is preserve the broadcasting of classical music, which is admittedly not a very profitable venture given its current niche status. Taxpayer subsidies

SD,
Although the public certainly owns the broadcast spectrum, and can certainly use that ownership to prohibit obscenities or profanities from TV, proposals to control political content make me leery. This power is liable to abuse by government officials, which is why I oppose the Fairness Doctrine.

I really don’t see the detriment to society that exists if conservative infomercials dominate AM talk radio. Leftist view points don’t work well with the radio format, which is too hierarchical; in contrast, the blogosphere has opened up amazing opportunities for us to communicate our peers (as you already noted). The fairness doctrine is obsolete; it was created at a time when broadcasters had a lynchpin control over the marketplace of ideas, which is not the case anymore. In today’s world, I think the status quo serves the public interest the best when it comes to AM talk radio.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 23, 2011 8:00 PM
Comment #324879

WR gave me the best laugh of the day by writing…”If one has a license to operate a radio station, they are free to choose the programing.

Not necessarily. When was the last time you saw pornography broadcast over the air.”

Sorry WR, my radio doesn’t provide pictures or video. You should apply for a patent on yours.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 23, 2011 8:14 PM
Comment #324880

“Again, who’s we, Kemosabe? Not raising the debt ceiling will have a devastating effect on the budget all around. Not being able to raise it means we can only pay out what we get in taxes. Your social security checks and military paychecks come out of the treasury.
At the very least, we’re dealing with a disruption to those checks. And really, they’re right, it will tighten up an already tight economy, sending us back into recession.”

Again we Mr. Daugherty continue the LIES and FEAR MONGERING of the left. It is a fact that SS and military paychecks will not be affected; but I will concede a failure of raising the debt ceiling could result in funds being cut from non-essential services like FDA, DOE, EPA, and others, of which would result in no problem. Our debt payments to China and any others we owe would continue to be paid. As I have told you many times SD, you simply spout the democrat talking points… If you have proof of your claim, or inside info, perhaps you could provide it.

14th Amendment, section 4: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

Amendment 14 sec. 4 makes it illegal to default on our debt. Before we can default on our debt we would have to cut every single program in the Federal Government and sell every asset owned by the country.

Outright default is illegal and the politicians know it. Liberal politicians know that if you scare enough people you can just keep kicking the can down the road, which is what politicians do these days.


“The problem seems to be that any time somebody tells you something is dumb, you take that as a challenge rather than a warning. Not only that, but you push a whole bunch of people into thinking that it’s the smart thing to do.
But dumb is dumb.”

Boy, if that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black… There was a movie made about the socialists on the left, it was called “Dumb and Dumber”. Between the liberal politicians and the liberal talking heads, I’m not sure which one is Dumb and which one is Dumber.

Royal said:

“Why don’t liberals purchase radio stations and then air their liberal political views? Nearly everything is for sale in the private market if the price is right.”

They did, it was called Air America, and it failed miserably. At the risk of incurring the wrath of SD for publishing lengthy quotes from a link: I’m sure my conservative friends will enjoy it. But to SD I will have to quote the famous words of Clark Gabel, “Frankly Scarlett, I don’t give a damn”:

“Conspiracy theorist Robert Kennedy, Jr is one of those leftists living in an alternate universe, a man who feels entitled not just to his own opinions, but to his own facts. Utilizing the taxpayer-subsidized airwaves of PBS, he told Tavis Smiley that Air America’s failure was due to a boycott of evil corporate advertisers, not to a failure to attract listeners.

“Air America failed not because it wasn’t popular In every jurisdiction where it was operating, it was beating out right wing radio…. the problem was that it couldn’t get advertising. The corporations - tyhe oil companies, the biggest advertisers.. the pharmaceutical companies… the automobile companies… these companies, they all boycotted it.”

This is crazy on multiple counts. As anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh or any of the other talk radio greats can easily attest, pharmaceutical companies, automobile companies, and other blue ribbon corporate advertisers are far from the top advertisers. Right now, it is gold companies, and entrepreneurial firms. Rush Limbaugh’s current top advertiser is his own new iced tea company, an example of do-it-yourself entrepreneurship — precisely 180 degrees opposite the corporate sponsorship model crazy RFK posits.

Second, Air America had lousy ratings. The far-from-conservative Christian Science Monitor noted in 2005:”

…look at Air America’s ratings: They’re pitifully weak, even in places where you would think they’d be strong. WLIB, its flagship in New York City, has sunk to 24th in the metro area Arbitron ratings - worse than the all-Caribbean format it replaced, notes the blog “radioequalizer.” In the liberal meccas of San Francisco and Los Angeles, Air America is doing lousier still.”
Left Wing Vanity Fair (which RFK praises later in the interview!) wrote:
…despite abundant publicity and an impressive roster of on-air talent, Air America’s ratings never came anywhere near those of right-wing titans such as Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, or even those of heartland progressive Ed Schultz.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/06/rfk_jr_air_america_was_beating_out_right_wing_radio_but_evil_corporate_advertisers_boycotted_it.html

If anyone wants to read the rest of the link, JFK Jr. goes on to say that NPR is taxpayer subsidized, unlike SD who is trying to convince us it is not…

SD’ s continued BS:

“Yes, the ATF folks screwed up. But where did I ever say that was alright. If the folks who okayed that resign, just deserts.
The real problem in the ATF, it seems, is that the ATF leadership took big risks, and did so stupidly.”

No Stephano, the real problem is how high does this problem go? Who gave the original orders to go ahead with “Fast and Furious”? Inquiring minds want to know…

This could only happen on WB, Rich says:

“So, it was a Bush administration’s program continued by the Obama administration. That might explain why a Republican appointee holdover from the Bush administration was named acting director.”

So now “Fast and Furious” was all Bush’s fault.

WR said:

“Although the public certainly owns the broadcast spectrum, and can certainly use that ownership to prohibit obscenities or profanities from TV, proposals to control political content make me leery. This power is liable to abuse by government officials, which is why I oppose the Fairness Doctrine.”

Be careful Warped, you’re sounding like a conservative and you may incur the wrath of SD for being a traitor.

Posted by: Conservativetrhinker at June 23, 2011 8:25 PM
Comment #324885

RF,

WR gave me the best laugh of the day

Just doing my job ;)

I was a little careless and read your statement to include all broadcast media. In any case, telephone sex (audio pornography) is not permitted in this country; nor are certain words (ask George Carlin), which was my point.

CT,

14th Amendment, section 4: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
Amendment 14 sec. 4 makes it illegal to default on our debt. Before we can default on our debt we would have to cut every single program in the Federal Government and sell every asset owned by the country.

Outright default is illegal and the politicians know it. Liberal politicians know that if you scare enough people you can just keep kicking the can down the road, which is what politicians do these days.

Given the track record of our government’s adherence to the Constitution, I consider this unlikely. Bohner holds all the cards on this one. My gut feeling is that he’ll preserve funding for the military and entitlements and let non-defense discretionary spending take the hit, which is too bad because non-defense discretionary spending is not problematic. The problem lies in too much spending on entitlements & defense coupled with the lowest taxes since the Korean War.

Be careful Warped, you’re sounding like a conservative

Conservatives seek to limit our individual liberty. I am diametrically opposed to these sorts of encroachments, so there’s no reason for fear.

JFK Jr. goes on to say that NPR is taxpayer subsidized

If only dead men could talk. Thanks for the laugh, I assume you meant RFK Jr. In the article there is only a passing mention that RFK Jr said this, but I found the
original interview. I couldn’t find the reference, but in any case, RFK Jr. has been shown to be incapable of resisting the urge to like if he can provide a false defense of Air America, so his credibility is incredibly low. The Vanity Fair piece mentions competition with NPR (which I agree was a major contributor to Air America’s downfall), but still no evidence that taxpayer subsidizes public broadcasters significantly.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 23, 2011 9:35 PM
Comment #324887

Sorry about my choppy HTML.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 23, 2011 9:52 PM
Comment #324890

“So, it was a Bush administration’s program continued by the Obama administration…… So now “Fast and Furious” was all Bush’s fault.”

No, but it was started and expanded by Bush. That is a fact. I posted a conservative columnist’s (Michelle Malkin) background on the program and a Office of Inspector General’s assessment with funding summary conducted in late 2008 and 2009. That report reviewed the history of the huge sting operation from inception in 2005 through the first few months of the Obama administration.

The point is simple. Contrary to many conservative comments on this and other blogs, it was not conceived by liberals or started by the Obama administration. It was a going and expanding concern when Obama took office. He kept it. Probably because of the assertions by ATF that gun running was a major trafficking problem with Mexican cartels. Read the OIG report quoting ATF on the issue.

I will say it again. It was a reckless program due to its inability to adequately track the guns and the failure to obtain full cooperation of Mexican authorities. Both administrations should be faulted for their parts in the program. Truth be told, though, most of the fault probably lies with the ATF which exploited a funding gold mine. It was an attractive issue (gun running) and the political atmosphere was ripe for doing something about the cartels and violence.

What is clear about the ATF “Gunrunner” operation and its spin off “Fast and Furious” is that it was not motivated by some liberal fantasy to get more stringent gun control legislation passed or to confiscate guns from Americans. Otherwise, you would have to believe that the Bush administration which conceived and expanded the operation was in a conspiracy with the left to dupe the public on gun control.

If you take ATF at its word, it was motivated by a desire to take down major gun trafficking routes from the US to Mexican drug cartels and assist in reducing violence along the border. That issue resonated with both administrations and both parties in Congress. Whether ATF was correct about the gun running issue may be debatable. However, it was certainly a funding bonanza for the agency. The lure of millions of dollars of funding and expansion of the agency may have increased the level of risk that ATF was willing to take in order to obtain the funding.

Posted by: Rich at June 23, 2011 10:20 PM
Comment #324895

Royal Flush-

SD writes; “I know first hand from my education that there are a ****-ton of regulations that govern the usage of those airwaves by those stations. It’s not a matter of free speech, but a public trust. They don’t own that frequency, they license it from us.”
There’s SD’s “tell” again, resorting to ****words when he is defending the indefensible.

I graduated in 2002 with Bachelor of Arts Degree from Baylor University, my major being Telecommunications.

I like the sound of ****-ton (the censored word starts with an ‘s’) But it is in fact the truth. Most of the regulations are technical, and regard keeping the transmitter in good repair, not doing the usual incitement stuff. So on and so forth. Some of them deal with content, and those regulations include the ones that Janet Jackson and her right-hand boob ran afoul of in the infamous “wardrobe malfunction”.

But defending the indefensible? what is indefensible about what I said? I took an actual class in telecom policy, a degree requirement at that point in time. So, I can defend what I’m saying.

The license comes with obligations as well as rights and privileges, and the rights and privileges can go bye-bye if you don’t fulfill the obligations. That’s the point of the license.

Then, to demonstrate his socialist leanings he writes; “You talk about us buying stations and flooding it with our views, but is that really the right way to do things?”

So, to demonstrate my socialist leanings…

…I rule out using the airwaves as my own partisan mouthpiece?

Broadcasting is not free speech. It’s the use of a public resource. This is the law. Between me citing what the law is, and you fantasizing about what the law should be, between me recalling what the court cases said about free speech on television, and you recalling your various red-baiting appeals to what you would think ideal, I think I’ve got the advantage here on telling it like it is to readers about this policy. You can browbeat them all day about what broadcasting should be, but I can tell them what it is.

Broadcasting is a partnership, from which commercial stations reap much of the benefits. Now some rules have been relaxed over time, but it still isn’t what you idealize.

As for unpopular programing, did you bother to read my source on NPR? We’re no less unpopular than Rush Limbaugh and all the other think-tank cronies you want to portray as the market’s choice. This is especially true now as we find out what people actually read and watch, as oppose to what they submit in written reports.

I don’t need the liberal message to be the exclusive one in any given market, on any given station. I don’t have to keep everything to myself, to believe that I can convince a good amount of people of what I think.

Unlike you, who is alarmed that somebody might break your artificially imposed monopoly on some parts of the spectrum, I can actually live with having some competition! I relish it, even, because you folks give me the opportunity to explain my policies and opinions better.

But you? You folks need everything to be stacked in your favor, or its all biased against you. The tragedy of that is that it is an important skill to be able to stand up for what you believe amongst others who don’t share your beliefs, and convince people on the merits. It doesn’t take much brains or much speaking skill to repeat what your own people want to hear, but unfortunately, those are the people you’ve cultivated, and your party pays for it every day.

SD would like to use the Ninth Amendment to declare that “needs” are rights. Legislating “needs” do not make them “rights” except in the liberal mind that must extort money (private property) from those that have some to give to those who will vote for them.

Extort? Again, the constitution gives Congress the enumerated power to tax. If it’s legal, it’s not theft! Argue excess, if you wish to lecture us about the law, but don’t fall back on a constitutional inhibition that’s not there.

As for the Ninth Amendment? Just admit it. You were caught with your pants down on that one. The Constitution itself says that it’s not the repository of all our rights. Consequently, there is nothing that prevents congress from legislating a right into existence (within the constitution’s limits) or, in other cases, of legislating it out of existence (again within the constitution’s limits)

Your problem is that you’ve found the constitutional hammer, and see every political problem as a nail. Rather than argue with uncertainty and potential failure on the merits, you instead try to borrow the unquestionability of the Constitution to back what in reality are your own dubious legal interepretations. This is yet another sad part of the decline of Republican argumentation.

if it was funded through purely private sources, its political leaning would not be of any concern. so you see the main objection is not its left leaning bias. it is the fact that bias is funded through tax dollars which the last checked are not voluntary.

Tell that to the people who complain about MSNBC’s liberal lineup.

Conservativethinker-

Again we Mr. Daugherty continue the LIES and FEAR MONGERING of the left. It is a fact that SS and military paychecks will not be affected; but I will concede a failure of raising the debt ceiling could result in funds being cut from non-essential services like FDA, DOE, EPA, and others, of which would result in no problem. Our debt payments to China and any others we owe would continue to be paid. As I have told you many times SD, you simply spout the democrat talking points… If you have proof of your claim, or inside info, perhaps you could provide it.

I don’t know where to begin. The failure of the debt limit means that the treasury has reach it’s statutory limit to borrow. You say that Social Security and military paychecks would not be effected, but there is not enough money in the programs you’re talking about to make up for the shortfall! We’d have to cut the military, have to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, because they’re the bulk of what this government spends, and you are about to force us to stop spending around a third of our entire budget!

Your namecalling changes nothing. The law is plain is this, and the laws of economic reality on this are even plainer: America would lose, one way or another, a trillion dollars in economic activity almost instantly!

And as for proof? I’ve been providing it all along. But I guess you’ll stop ignoring it when Fox and the Heritage foundation start saying its true.

As for Air America?

Liberals don’t like to be spoon-fed. Air America was an attempt to emulate your side’s spoon-feeding. But our culture never caught on.

But meanwhile, NPR gets as good of ratings as Rush Limbaugh. It’s not that liberals are self-hating in this regard. Far from it. We like to consider things freely, not in a spoon-fed manner.

Democrats love the internet because the internet allows us more freedom to take our own position.

No Stephano, the real problem is how high does this problem go? Who gave the original orders to go ahead with “Fast and Furious”? Inquiring minds want to know…

You want Obama brought down, or at least badly embarrassed. Actually solving the problem is secondary.

So now “Fast and Furious” was all Bush’s fault.

I hate when people argue this way. You know, sometimes, a screw up like this is like a cherrybomb wrapped in dog poo. The problem belongs to both Administrations, to the degree the evidence deals out the responsibility.

The question “does this go to the top” can be asked, but really, what motivates that question. Evidence? Or your wish that it go to the top?

Regardless, the answer to that question doesn’t depend on your opinion, nor should it. It should depend on where the facts take you.

The facts tell us this is more complicated that just some vain partisan attempt to make a failed law-enforcement sting a Watergate-style scandal. It involves federal prosecutors either too overworked, too jaded, or too stupid to prosecute the cases. It involves straw purchases not being illegal, so an Al Capone style technicality, which carries a light sentence, is substituted instead, where we prosecute people for not saying they were buying for other people or giving a false address.

It involves the simple fact that we’re monitoring several thousand stores with a little over a couple hundred agents.

But no, you want your scandal.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2011 11:59 PM
Comment #324897

WR, thanks for the correction on RFK Jr. My mind was thinking RFK and my hands were typing JFK.

I assume you meant Boehner when you said Bohner…

“Given the track record of our government’s adherence to the Constitution, I consider this unlikely.”

This is a very sad statement, but I fear true.

The entitlements need to be dealt with; but when Ryan proposed a way to do it the gutless socialists would rather lie and try to scare seniors. When in reality anyone 55 and older would not be affected.

I fear Warped, there will be nothing left for you in 40+ years, but you can rest in knowing the democrats will continue to raise your SS and Medicare taxes, so that you can continue to pay the benefits of those older than you.

“The problem lies in too much spending on entitlements & defense coupled with the lowest taxes since the Korean War.”

Warped, you are not the same as SD, who is blinded by his ignorance to protect every socialist, no matter what they say or do; but I do not understand the left’s hatred of tax cuts. I read the links posted in Comment #324836, in the green column, dated June 22, and why can’t some people understand that lowering taxes stimulates the economy, which creates jobs, and increases revenue. JFK understood this and even Obama understands this same principle. This is what he said in December of 2010, when he signed the Bill:

“Mr. Obama said the bill would create jobs and boost the still-struggling U.S. economy. He called it a “substantial victory for middle class families” who would otherwise have seen a tax increase.

“In fact, not only will middle class Americans avoid a tax increase, but tens of millions of Americans will start the new year off right by opening their first paycheck to see that it’s larger than the one they get right now,” he said.

The president also noted the bill included tax breaks for millions of college students and their families and extensions of the earned income tax credit and $1,000-per-child tax credit. It also includes extensions of tax incentives for businesses to invest and expand and lower taxes on capitol gains and dividends.”


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html#ixzz1QABA2Bqz

Why would he say it will create jobs and “extensions of tax incentives for businesses to invest and expand and lower taxes on capital gains and dividends”?

If his signing of this Bill would create jobs and stimulate business, why wouldn’t permanent tax cuts do even more? The problem is not a lack of taxes; the problem is a loss of revenue. I can understand why SD thinks like a socialist, but I can’t understand why you can’t understand this. I look at a household as a miniature business economy. Obama is more than willing to present retirees with a bonus SS check, or give SS tax holidays to workers; and for what purpose; to stimulate our spending on products. Why wouldn’t tax cuts for business stimulate spending? Now you may say, businesses are holding their money and not spending it, and you would be right. My wife and I are also watching our spending and trying to save and invest, even though we are retired and draw a good retirement; and the reason is because we do not trust the future. I would rather do with a little less now and know we won’t get in trouble later. This is the same thing businesses are doing. There is uncertainty; why would a company want to expand and hire more people than they have to if they will be punished by forcing them to pay more for healthcare and benefits in the future. Companies do not know what is coming from obamacare and this is proved by the thousands of waivers obama has given out. Obama understands and he is just trying to make it through the next election; hoping that things will get better just enough to raise his poll numbers. It’s not a hard concept to understand, if you look at it with an open mind. Everything obama has done to help the economy has had the exact opposite effect. Every Friday, the news announces the latest unemployment numbers and first time filers with false numbers; because every Monday the jobless claims are updated by thousands more. If you don’t believe me, just check the numbers. We are told the unemployment is 9.1 or 2%, and yet we all know unemployment is actually 16 to 18%. We are told inflation is very low, but the price of petroleum goods, food, health insurance, and energy has double digit inflation numbers. The only thing going down is the value of housing. You don’t have a house yet; but how would you like to have a house you paid $250, 000 for, with a $1300 a month house payment, and find out you house is only worth $150,000? This is happening to millions of people across America. And what has obama done? Nothing but spend $3.4 trillion tax dollars in the past 2 ½ years.

I know you want to protect SD, as a fellow liberal, but you do him and us a disservice by allowing him to continue to spout his socialist crap.

All you have to do is read his latest litany of BS in Comment #324895.

SD seems to forget that revenue will continue to come into the treasury. But I do thank him for admitting SS is broke and there is no money in Gore’s “locked box”.

And how about this silly statement, “Liberals don’t like to be spoon-fed. Air America was an attempt to emulate your side’s spoon-feeding. But our culture never caught on.”

No, the fact is; when you take away abortion, tax and spending increases, gun control, and it was Bush’s fault, liberals have nothing else to say. What was said on Air America was no different than what Maddow, the now defunked Olberman, or even ED Shultz have to say. And their programs are a waste. Conservative shows are up and running fine. Of course we can’t forget that SD thinks only the left is smart enough to understand and use the internet. How would a bunch of us redneck bumpkins, who cling to our religion and guns ever be able to understand the internet. I hate to tell you this SD, but I was playing with and building mother boards when you had barely quit wetting in your diapers. Such arrogance…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 24, 2011 1:01 AM
Comment #324912

Cthinker, you will not get far when continuing to trash Stephen. By all means, live with your narrow-minded attitudes and thoughts, continue coming in here with only the intent of bashing liberals, and hoping to “convert” anyone you can to your way of thinking. We are capable of our own thoughts and of making our own decisions without being strong-armed by you or the rest of your ilk.
I would take Maddow and Olbermon and put them up against the whole group of Faux ‘fonys’ any day and it would be a rout against your dolts. Your old and tired and threadbare rhetoric does not impress anyone who you’re trying to have an effect on, and you merely just continue to litter the site with your garbage.

Posted by: jane doe at June 24, 2011 4:46 AM
Comment #324914

CT,

The problem with your analysis of why businesses are hoarding cash is not so much the factor of uncertainty but rather the exclusive attribution of that uncertainty to Obama.

This is not a new phenomena. Businesses have been increasingly hoarding cash for decades. Well before Obama even thought of running for president. http://www.news.illinois.edu/news/10/0908cash_almeida.html

Uncertainty and volatility in the market may play a role in business decisions to hoard cash. That didn’t begin with Obama. Weakened consumer demand from too much household debt may play a role in reluctance to invest in new production which can’t be sold. It may be related to strategies designed to increase stock prices. Whatever the reasons, they are not exclusively related to Obama or his policies.

Posted by: Rich at June 24, 2011 9:11 AM
Comment #324920

Jane doe, you have no idea what you are talking about and your statements are nothing more than the same old liberal talking points and wishful thinking:
“FNC ranked #8 for all cable channels in 2006 and #6 in 2007.[35] The news channel surged to #1 during the week of Barack Obama’s election (November 3–9) in 2008 and reached the top spot again in January 2010 during the week of the special Senate election in Massachusetts.[36] Comparing Fox to its 24-hour news channel competitors, for the month of May 2010 the channel drew an average daily prime time audience of 1.8 million versus 747 000 for MSNBC and 595 000 for CNN.[37]
In September 2009, the Pew Research Center published a report on public views toward various national news organizations. This report indicated that 72% of Republican Fox viewers rated the channel as “favorable”, and 43% of Democrat viewers and 55% of all viewers share this opinion. However, Fox had the highest unfavorable rating of all national outlets studied at 25 percent of all viewers. The report goes on to say that “partisan differences in views of Fox News have increased substantially since 2007”.[38]
In January 2010, the Democratic Party-affiliated Public Policy Polling reported that Fox News was the most trusted television news channel in the country with 49% of respondents stating they trust Fox News.[39][40] Fox also scored the lowest level of distrust with only 37%, and was the only channel to score a net positive in that regard, with a +12%. CNN scored second in the poll with 39% of those polled stating that they trusted the news channel, and 41% stating distrust, a −2% net score.[41]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel

And I will add this link because it is a Democratic polling that produced these numbers:

“Public Policy Polling (PPP) is an American Democratic Party-affiliated polling firm based in Raleigh, North Carolina.[1][2][3] PPP was founded in 2001 by businessman and Democratic pollster Dean Debnam, the firm’s current president and chief executive officer.[1][4] The company’s surveys use Interactive Voice Response (IVR), an automated questionnaire used by other polling firms such as SurveyUSA and Rasmussen Reports.[5]
PPP’s polls have been described as very accurate in the 2008 U.S. presidential election as well as the 2010 midterms by The Wall Street Journal[5] and Mark Blumenthal, senior polling editor of the Huffington Post and the founding editor of Pollster.com [6], among others.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Polling

Rich, did you read the link you posted, or did you just go with the title?

An overview of what it says:
1. The left wants us to believe cash hoarding is part of the financial problems but professor Heitor Almeida said, “There’s not really a consensus on what accounts for businesses holding so much cash, but they’ve been doing it way before the downturn, at least since the early 1980s,” he said. “Cash hoarding is definitely not related to the financial crisis.”
2. “When the crisis hit, firms had a lot of cash on hand, and they used it to avoid decreasing investment and firing employees,” he said. “If businesses hadn’t had all that cash on hand, things could have been much, much worse.”
3. “Part of this is due to most big firms being multinational, allowing them to park the bulk of their cash outside of the U.S. in tax havens.”

“If you keep profits outside of the U.S., obviously, they won’t get taxed,” he said. “The way U.S. tax laws are written is that firms pay taxes the moment they repatriate the cash, which would be quite costly to shareholders.”
4. Obama is looking for short term solutions for political gain, but companies look at the long term: “Almeida said even if companies did open up the coffers and flood the economy with cash, what might be good for job creation in the short-term might not necessarily be consonant with what shareholders want.”

“If you invest money to create jobs but generate negative profits, that’s not good for shareholders,” he said. “So that’s probably not what firms should be doing, as much as we want to grow jobs.”
5. “The fact that firms have cash suggests that getting banks to lend more isn’t the way to go,” Almeida said. “Firms already have cash but they’re not spending it. So what’s the point of having banks make more loans, if firms don’t need the cash?”

President Obama’s call for tax breaks for corporate investment, which would allow businesses to write off the cost of new investments in plants and equipment, and thereby create an incentive for businesses to spend money, are a step in the right direction, Almeida says.” So we Have further proof that Obama knows cutting taxes on corporations stimulates the economy, which is also what JFK and Reagan believed.
6. Even though you quote this professor and he is undoubtedly a democrat, he continues to place the blame for the housing bubble, which led to the economy crisis, on the government’s involvement with Freddie and Fannie: “According to Almeida, the prime enabler for helping to create the housing bubble is the continued governmental support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the secondary mortgage markets they sponsor to ostensibly make mortgage loans more affordable.

“That’s what got us into real trouble,” he said. “The U.S. needs to get out of the mortgage lending business, even if the repercussions of that means making housing less affordable in the short-term. That may sound like the wrong thing to do, to make things harder for people, but it’s what the U.S. needs to do to strengthen the housing market.”

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 24, 2011 10:27 AM
Comment #324923

CT,

I did read the linked article. The point of the article was that corporate cash hoarding is not something that is new, related to Obama’s policies or even due to the economic crash of 2008. The constant refrain from conservatives that lack of corporate investment is due to uncertainty created by Obama is not consistent with the data. If there isn’t sufficient demand, there is no reasonable incentive for corporations to increase investment and production.

The article further points out that the basic problem with the current economy is the effects of the crash of the housing bubble which has put a substantial part of middle America underwater, limited its ability to borrow and dampened consumer spending. In other words, it is a balance sheet recession. The article questions the wisdom of the US government historical support for mortgage lending in general. That criticism calls into question not only liberal but conservative policies during the post-war period. You can throw in the Fed under Greenspan with his cheap money for good measure. Remember, it was just a few years ago that the Bush administration was pushing the “ownership society” and pressuring the GSEs to make more funding available for minority housing. See also the Affordable Housing Act of 2002.

Posted by: Rich at June 24, 2011 1:27 PM
Comment #324927

SD writes; “As for the Ninth Amendment? Just admit it. You were caught with your pants down on that one. The Constitution itself says that it’s not the repository of all our rights. Consequently, there is nothing that prevents congress from legislating a right into existence (within the constitution’s limits) or, in other cases, of legislating it out of existence (again within the constitution’s limits)”

I’ll take one more crack at explaining this to SD and hope that it clears the fog from his mind.

If something is a constitutional “right” it can not be granted or taken away by any government authority. To equate “needs” with constitutional “rights” implies parity. If SD is correct, then our defined “rights” found in the constitution can be taken away.

He parses his comment about “needs” as “rights” as ones which can be granted or taken away…and then adds, “within the constitution’s limits”.

He appears to find, within the constitution, a meaning that is not there regarding “needs”. Needs come and go, while “rights” can not be legislated.

I do understand the necessity for SD and other liberals to insist that what they consider needs become rights. One can debate the nations, and individuals…needs. The debate can be politically motivated, and if the desired “needs” are approved, money must be allocated to fill them.

I would ask SD, when is the last time he, personally, heard congress assembled debating our constitutional “rights”? Are there any amendments to the constitution granting additional rights that required congress to set up funding to grant them? As I have written before, “needs” always require funding while “rights” require no funding other than to enforce them for every American.

The liberal and socialist must find needs to fill to attract supporters. Once found, and popularized, these needs are presented to congress for funding. It is simple to object to needs funding because money must always be found to provide them. And, the funding most always comes from those who do not have the need. To force those not having the need to pay for those who do, the “need” must be endowed with the status of “rights”.

In just such a fashion, in converting “needs” to “rights” we have added trillions to our national spending. Liberals understand that spending requires money, found…either with higher taxes, by borrowing it, or by printing it.

Conservatives are dedicated to defending and protecting our individual constitutional “rights”. Since “rights” require no funding, it’s not attractive to some as a political goal as it places no additional money or benefits in the pockets of Americans. A campaign slogan that says, “we will protect your constitutional rights” doesn’t sway many voters as they expect that from any politician. A campaign slogan that says, “we will tax the rich and give you the money…we will provide you with free health care…we will provide you with more unemployment benefits, we will (name your own group need) will excite the masses with visions of sugarplums.

These political promises of filling more group “needs” has been, and still is, very effective come election time. But, as always, the thorn in the rose bush eventually pricks the holder. As “needs” accumulate and grow, there comes a time when they overwhelm the revenue necessary to pay for them. We are in just such a time.

The 2012 election I believe, will center around continuing to fund “needs” of special groups or reducing them to the basic necessities of life.

If, and when, SD can acknowledge the difference between “needs” and “rights” I believe we could have some very interesting and fruitful discussions. And, since I believe the next election will primarily deal with this difference, we will be having the discussion whether he agrees with me or not.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 24, 2011 2:08 PM
Comment #324930

Okay Rich, let’s look at the statements of the professor one more time:

“Part of this is due to most big firms being multinational, allowing them to park the bulk of their cash outside of the U.S. in tax havens.”

“If you keep profits outside of the U.S., obviously, they won’t get taxed,” he said. “The way U.S. tax laws are written is that firms pay taxes the moment they repatriate the cash, which would be quite costly to shareholders.”

Big firms are multinational and able to keep their money outside of the US and the question is, why won’t they bring the money back into the US? Did these same companies invest money in the US during the 8 years of President Bush? Yes, they most certainly did, until the economy began to go south. When did the economy begin to go south? It began with the collapse of the housing market:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/04/The-Subprime-Mortgage-Market-Collapse-A-Primer-on-the-Causes-and-Possible-Solutions

And Freddie and Fannie were right in the middle of the conflict. Therefore, we find your link and your professor Heitor Almeid, correctly placing the blame for the housing bubble, which led to the economy crisis, on the government’s involvement with Freddie and Fannie: “According to Almeida, the prime enabler for helping to create the housing bubble is the continued governmental support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the secondary mortgage markets they sponsor to ostensibly make mortgage loans more affordable.
“That’s what got us into real trouble,” he said. “The U.S. needs to get out of the mortgage lending business, even if the repercussions of that means making housing less affordable in the short-term. That may sound like the wrong thing to do, to make things harder for people, but it’s what the U.S. needs to do to strengthen the housing market.”

This mortgage lending business goes all the way back to the inception of Fannie Mae. Again, the government, under democratic leadership felt it was their duty to make sure everyone owned a house, whether they could afford it or not.

So we know when and where the problem started, but your question is why do the multinational companies hold the assets on foreign soil? They do it, because the obama administration is blatantly anti-business and has shown absolutely no leadership and desire to treat these companies fairly if they were to reinvest in America.

Rush Limbaugh, whom the left hates, dealt with this very subject during obama’s campaign in 2008. He said obama had an anti-business record and it would force companies to downsize and move their assets out of the country as a means of self preservation. All you have to do is check his archives. The obamacare bill has just added to the uncertainty of corporations. As long as obama is in office and refuses to look at the long term, the economy will never rebound. Obama has spent 3.4 trillion dollars in 2 ½ years with NO results, and companies know he would love nothing better than to get his hands on the 2 trillion they have in reserve. Companies don’t care about a rebounding the economy, their sole purpose is to make a profit for their stockholders and if that means the economy rebounds, then that is a plus.

Posted by: conservativethinker at June 24, 2011 3:03 PM
Comment #324931

“Remember, it was just a few years ago that the Bush administration was pushing the “ownership society” and pressuring the GSEs to make more funding available for minority housing. See also the Affordable Housing Act of 2002.”

Sorry Rich, but this program has always been the left’s golden goose.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 24, 2011 3:06 PM
Comment #324932

Royal Flush,

It is not true that all constitutional rights do not require public funding. The 6th Amendment right to counsel is a good example.

“we will tax the rich and give you the money…we will provide you with free health care…”

I presume that you are talking about Medicare. It is not free and nobody is saying that it should be. Not only is every working American taxed for Medicare but it, as you are well aware, has significant deductibles and co-pays. In fact, since 1983 working Americans have been paying a premium above the cost to provide a surplus for anticipated baby boomer retirement. The problem of meeting the future entitlement funding is not that people have not been paying their fair share or anticipating future needs, but that health care cost escalation has been double or triple general inflation. You only have to look at this chart to see the nature of our deficit problems. http://www.cepr.net/calculators/hc/hc-calculator.html

Posted by: Rich at June 24, 2011 3:16 PM
Comment #324933

Royal, the needs of the left require “feely-touchy” and when they are able to do this, they become the compassionate group. I understand you completely,that the government’s duty is to protect my right to do the best I can or in other words, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. I am not guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; but I have the right to seek them, or not seek them.

The Europeans have very few “Rights”, but it is the misinterpreting of “Needs” to be “Rights” that has placed them in the dire conditions they have today. Converting Needs to Rights will break the bank of any nation.

SD does not and cannot understand this, because his mindset is that of a European Socialist.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 24, 2011 3:18 PM
Comment #324934

CT,

I will bet that you are entirely unaware of the Bush policies on home ownership during his terms in office. I bet that you have never heard of the American Dream Down Payment Act of 2003. The following link is President Bush’s remarks on signing the Act. It provides an overview of his policies and efforts at expanding home ownership, particularly for minorities and the role of the GSEs and government in providing down payment and no money down loans. http://www.americandreamdownpaymentassistance.com/whsp12162003.cfm

The following is a link providing a broader overview of the Bush administration policies on home ownership, mortgages, GSEs, regulatory actions, etc. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html

I bring this information to your attention because it seems that conservatives get amnesia regarding the role of conservatives in promoting the housing bubble. It was hardly a liberal problem. In fact, liberals weren’t in majority when the housing bubble took off.


Posted by: Rich at June 24, 2011 3:42 PM
Comment #324936

CT,

“So Mr. Bush had to, in his words, “use the mighty muscle of the federal government” to meet his goal (home ownership). He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to spend up to $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html

Posted by: Rich at June 24, 2011 3:50 PM
Comment #324937

Rich wrote; “Royal Flush,

It is not true that all constitutional rights do not require public funding. The 6th Amendment right to counsel is a good example.”

I wrote that constitutional rights are free except for the money required to enforce them. No, I was not referring to Medicare. Medicare is not an entitlement if, as you write, everyone is paying for it. We are entitled to what we pay for…right?

Conservativethinker writes; “SD does not and cannot understand this, because his mindset is that of a European Socialist.”

I agree. Some place value only on things that have a price tag. Since our actual constitutional “rights” have no price tag, other than the cost to enforce them, they don’t appear to have much value for our liberal and socialist friends.

The reason our “rights” have no price tag is that they come, not from government, but “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

SD and others would have us believe that our “needs” fall into the same category. I would like to have that explained to me.


Posted by: Royal Flush at June 24, 2011 3:52 PM
Comment #324950


The idea of unalienable rights is a ridiculous one. Rights, what they are and who has them is a product of society. In a dictatorial society, the only people who have rights are those who wholeheartedly support the dictator. Those who don’t support the dictator have no rights and there is no God intervening on their part.

In a Democratic Republic, the people determine what rights individuals have and we have done rather well at securing rights.

“they don’t appear to have much value to our liberal and socialist friends.”

Our history is full of truths in this regard.

Remember when conservative do gooder abolitionists were trying to deprive liberal slave holders of their property?

Remember how Southern liberals fired on Fort Sumter, beginning the Civil War?

Remember how conservatives all rallied behind the Constitutional Amendment giving black men the right to vote, and later did the same thing for women?

And who could forget all those conservatives marching from Selma to Montgomery in the name of equal rights. Think of all those beatings and deaths inflicted on the Freedom Riders at the hands of liberal Klannish types upset with the conservative outside agitators stirring up trouble with their darkies.

I am old enough to have seen those crowds of liberals shouting terrible obscenities and threatening great harm to young kids trying to attend Central High. I remember seeing, on TV, that great liberal/socialist leader, Gov. Wallace barricading the doors with his body to prevent the implementation of rights.

Even today, you have liberal politicians saying that while government doesn’t have a right to violate peoples rights by discriminating against them, business does.

It is the nature of liberal/socialists to deny individual rights to some people because it violates the individual rights of other people.

Posted by: jlw at June 24, 2011 6:23 PM
Comment #324952
thanks for the correction on RFK Jr. My mind was thinking RFK and my hands were typing JFK.

I assume you meant Boehner when you said Bohner…

Aargh!!! My fingers are malfunctioning; I called the manufacturer and hopefully they should be working normally again.

but when Ryan proposed a way to do it

Ryan’s method certainly is worth pondering. It basically replaces Medicare with ObamaCare.

When in reality anyone 55 and older would not be affected.

Personally, I think this proposal reeked of adultism. If the plan is good enough for people like me, it should be good enough for people who are currently seniors. Nonetheless, I agree that some statist opposition to RyanCare is a bit distasteful.

I fear Warped, there will be nothing left for you in 40+ years, but you can rest in knowing the democrats will continue to raise your SS and Medicare taxes, so that you can continue to pay the benefits of those older than you.

I don’t fear. I don’t hallucinate that there’s even a possibility I may collect SS or Medicare benefits. At least as long as those entitlement programs resemble their present forms. I’ve paid payroll taxes since 2005 and unfortunately, I’ll probably pay more and more in future years to support Seniors who didn’t adequately save for retirement.

I do not understand the left’s hatred of tax cuts.
The left does not hate tax cuts, as evidenced by what JFK did during his administration. There is a time and a place for tax cuts. The 1960s were one such time. The late ’70s and early ’80s were another such time. The major detriment when the housing bubble burst was that the lenders prevented businesses from borrowing money in order to invest. After those businesses shed jobs in response, it killed consumer spending and created a spiral downward as the drop off in consumer spending reduced business revenues which in turn caused more layoffs. A tax cut in today’s economy would do little to boost aggregate demand and any cuts in government spending would actually decrease aggregate demand.

Keep in mind that taxes are already at their lowest point since the Korean War. When JFK & RWR cut taxes, the top marginal rate was much higher (>>50%). If that was the case today, I might not be opposed to more tax cuts; but, given today’s circumstances, I think tax cuts will only hurt our economy in the long-run. If those tax cuts are not financed by corresponding cuts in government spending (ie if the cuts are designed similarly to the Bush cuts), then those cuts will only worsen our debt situation and will only spell hyperinflation or worse down the road. If the cuts are financed by cuts in government spending, then the net effect will be to damper aggregate demand.

Regarding Obama, he is a pandering politician who is more than willing to lie about tax reductions if it allows him to score a few political points with misinformed voters.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 24, 2011 6:32 PM
Comment #324954
The idea of unalienable rights is a ridiculous one. Rights, what they are and who has them is a product of society. In a dictatorial society, the only people who have rights are those who wholeheartedly support the dictator. Those who don’t support the dictator have no rights and there is no God intervening on their part.

Personally, I understand the concept of unalienable rights as a Noble Lie in the sense described in Plato’s Republic. I prefer to live in a society that believes in unalienable rights endowed by God because I want my government to fear the consequences of violating those rights. Humanity is not mature enough to maintain peace, harmony and tranquility without this magnificent myth.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 24, 2011 6:54 PM
Comment #324955

jlw writes; “In a dictatorial society, the only people who have rights are those who wholeheartedly support the dictator. Those who don’t support the dictator have no rights and there is no God intervening on their part.”

The rights spoken of in our founding documents belong to every man, everywhere. That they are sometimes suppressed and withheld by dictators and tyrants doesn’t negate them. They remain, to be restored, by those willing to fight, and possibly die, for them.

I would disagree with your comment suggesting that God does not intervene. One does not need to be particularly religious to see the hand of God involved in our victory over tyranny in WWII or in the fall of the Soviet Union. The fact that some do not recognize God’s work doesn’t mean it isn’t there. I can just as easily deny the existence of jlw, but he would certainly disagree. He could easily say…”Look, here I am”. I see God in the same way, I see evidence of His majestic hand at work everywhere I look.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 24, 2011 6:59 PM
Comment #324958

Great post Royal… All one has to do is study the Revolutionary War with leadership of George Washington and we can see the hand of God in impossible situations. Our rights come from God and our founders knew it, but the left’s hatred of God and the denial of the part He played in the lives of the founding fathers causes them to deny America was a nation founded on Christian principles and at the same time replace rights with needs. “Needs”, abolishes God given rights.

Rich, one of the needs of the Tea Party is to hold Republican politicians accountable. I did not support Bush or any republicans who voted with Bush on entitlement programs. Of course Bush did try to regulate Freddie and Fannie, but was blocked by democrats like Frank and Dodd. There are many things that republicans do that I am against; it is for this reason I call myself a conservative and not a republican. I have no problem writing a republican and threatening to not support him if he votes like a RINO.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 24, 2011 8:14 PM
Comment #324959
but was blocked by democrats like Frank and Dodd.

Frank and Dodd must’ve been superhuman to block legislation while in the minority; especially Frank because the House has no filibuster.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 24, 2011 8:24 PM
Comment #324965

Yes, like the superhuman feat of the republicans blocking the democrats for the 1st two years of obama’s presidency.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 24, 2011 10:12 PM
Comment #324967

CT,

There was a GSE regulatory bill passed out the house in 2005 with the support of Democrats, e.g., Barney Frank. Representative Oxley, (R.-Ohio), Chairman of the Finance Committee, had this to say about the bill: “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Posted by: Rich at June 24, 2011 10:20 PM
Comment #324968

Warped, this one is from July 2008, with all the links as proof:

Paulson Let Liberals Block Reform of Fannie Mae
by Hans Bader on July 17, 2008

“Over a year ago, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson refused to push for reforms of fraud-ridden government-backed mortgage giant Fannie Mae, even though colleagues in the Bush Administration had long been advocating them. Why? Because he thought it would look “political” and offend powerful liberal Senators like Charles Schumer and Chris Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who have long blocked any reform of Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae has long been managed by liberal power brokers, who engaged in a massive accounting scandal. Now, a federal bailout of it is being planned.

A Washington Post editorial today notes that mortgage bailout legislation would perversely give Fannie Mae even more ability to buy up high-risk mortgages in the future. We earlier explained how the bailout legislation, orchestrated by Frank, Schumer, and Dodd, would further destabilize housing markets and reward irresponsible lenders and borrowers, while siphoning taxpayers’ money to left-wing special interest groups like ACORN, which promoted practices like liar loans that helped trigger the mortgage crisis, and which has concealed embezzlement and engaged in voting fraud. “

http://www.openmarket.org/2008/07/17/paulson-let-liberals-block-reform-of-fannie-mae/

This one is a continuation of the blocking of reforms dated May, 2010:

“Democrats Block Reform of Corrupt Mortgage Giants; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Will Receive Billions More in Bailouts for Government-Sponsored Enterprises
by Hans Bader on May 12, 2010

In a party-line, 56-to-43 vote yesterday, Senate Democrats blocked any reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the corrupt, government-backed mortgage giants that even administration officials admit were at the “core” of “what went wrong” in the financial crisis.
President Obama received $125,000 in contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives as a senator, second only to the corrupt Senator Chris Dodd, who is retiring this year over financial improprieties (such as his real estate gift from a lobbyist and “sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide Financial“), yet is the chief drafter of the financial “reform” legislation expected to pass the Senate by next week.

The financial “reform” bill would devastate the venture capital markets needed to create jobs and small businesses, by imposing onerous restrictions on so-called “angel financing.” It would also give government officials the ability to nationalize businesses that they claim are at risk of failing–and block meaningful judicial review of such seizures by shareholders alleging violations of their constitutional rights. (That will increase the ability of presidents to shake down businesses for donations to their political allies, since a business in danger of being seized by the government will try to curry favor with government officials.) The bill’s House architect, Barney Frank, boasts that it will create “death panels” for American companies (this is the same Barney Frank who for years blocked any reform of Fannie and Freddie).”

http://www.openmarket.org/2010/05/12/democrats-block-reform-of-corrupt-mortgage-giants-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-will-receive-billions-more-in-bailouts-for-government-sponsored-enterprises/

Warped, it’s not a case of if they blocked reform; it’s a case of how long they blocked reform. I hope there are enough links for you to finally understand what took place…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 24, 2011 10:30 PM
Comment #324971

Rich, nice copy and paste from the talking points of Salon.com?

I am including the rebutal against your liberal talking point. I figure the only way you will read it is to post it. By the way, the link is included so you can research to see if the rebuttle is true:

“Fannie & Freddie: let the fingerpointing begin!
by Slade Smith | 2008/09/11 |

Ohio Congressman Michael Oxley (R-Mansfield) has an axe to grind with critics who blame Congress for failing to pass reforms that may have averted the need for this week’s government takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As Oxley sees it, he did his part by crafting a reform bill in 2005 and getting it passed by the House of Representatives.

From the Financial Times:

[Oxley] fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.



“We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr Oxley says.

But a look back at the efforts to pass that bill calls into question Oxley’s version of events.

Slade Smith’s Blog ::

First, a little bit of background… Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s core business involves buying mortgages from originators, repackaging the mortgages into bond-like instruments called Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS), and either selling the MBSs to other institutions or keeping them in their own investment portfolios. To finance the purchase of mortgages, Fannie and Freddie issue debt in the form of bonds.

Fannie and Freddie had unique advantages afforded to them by their government charters as Government Sanctioned Entities (GSEs) that no other private firms who might wish to compete with them had. In particular, they were able to borrow money at much lower interest rates than other institutions with similar credit ratings, because of a perception that the government would step in and make Fannie and Freddie’s creditors whole if they ever failed— an “implied guarantee” which had never been disavowed by the government and had been actively fostered at times. This perception caused investors to consider Fannie and Freddie’s bonds to be nearly as risk-free as Treasury bonds, which carry the “full faith and credit” of the United States. Investors were willing to accept a much lower interest rate for Frannie and Freddie bonds in return for that kind of safety.

In and of itself, this was probably all looked upon as a net positive by most people in Washington. After all, it was Fannie and Freddie’s chartered mission to promote homeownership through the wide availability of mortgages to the lower and middle classes, and the borrowing advantages that they had helped keep interest rates on mortgages low. The attractive rates on mortgages were helping push homeownership rates to all-time highs.

But by 2005, many folks were becoming concerned by the sheer amount of debt Fannie and Freddie were issuing, and the purposes for which the debt was being used. The companies’ combined debt was over $2 trillion, and total assets were a bare 5% or so above liabilities as the companies operated at near the minimum amount of capital required by statute. And their asset portfolios not only included mortgage and mortgage-backed securities, but also complex derivatives used to hedge against the risk of interest rate changes and other business risks. In fact, Fannie and Freddie were getting most of their profits from their own huge investment portfolios, not through securitizing mortgages and selling the securities. Experts were questioning the purpose of these huge portfolios and worried about the implications to the taxpayer if the value of these portfolios should suddenly collapse and cause the GSEs to become insolvent, requiring the government to step in and make good on its implied guarantees on their debts.

Reform was needed— badly. Existing regulatory bodies did not have a sufficient statutory mandate to monitor Fannie and Freddie and rein in any excesses. For starters, Fannie and Freddie’s charter allowed them immunity from the rules of the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). In other words, Fannie and Freddie didn’t have to regularly report their finances to the public the way that other publicly-traded companies had to. Instead, Fannie and Freddie were accountable only to a special oversight bureau within HUD, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, (OFHEO). The effectiveness of this setup came under scrutiny after OFHEO issued a report in 2004 which revealed that Fannie Mae executives had been cooking its books all the way back to 1998 in order to fraudulently give the appearance of meeting profitability targets, so that the executives could max out on their performance bonuses. The fraud netted Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines up to $52.8 million in bonuses.

Fannie Mae tried to steamroll its underpowered regulator all along the way. At one point, Fannie Mae instigated a retailatory HUD investigation against the OFHEO regulators who were looking into their accounting fraud in order to undermine the credibility of the regulator. They had one of their lobbyists draft a letter for Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond (R-Mo) to send to HUD and request the investigation. Bond sent the letter on to HUD under his own name, made public statements directed at getting the lead regulator sacked, and was rewarded for his efforts with tidy campaign contributions from Mr. Raines and other Fannie Mae execs.

The reward for the brave OFHEO regulators who exposed the fraud of the mighty Fannie Mae were much more elusive— Senate appropriators tried to strip OFHEO of its funding.

With legislators like Bond in the hip pocket of the GSEs, it was hard to imagine that Congress would ever be able to pass the needed reforms. Enter Oxley and the bill he was sponsoring, The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005. On the surface, the bill appeared to contain needed reforms. It had language to create a new, improved regulatory body to replace OFHEO. It required the companies to register their stock with the SEC.

But for the most part, the bill was a flawed and toothless giveaway to the powerful GSEs. The bill expanded the statutory maximum loan amount to allow the GSEs to take over the jumbo market. It mandated “affordable housing funds” which could be allocated at the discretion of the GSEs, amounting to a slush fund that could be lavished on the districts of friendly legislators. There was a loophole which basically gave the GSEs the authority to expand their business beyond the secondary mortgage market and into any business that it deemed would “minimize the cost of housing finance”… some critics claimed that this vague language in the bill would allow the GSEs to enter into the title insurance or appraisal business— clearly far from their original purpose. A flaw in the bill would have caused a year-long gap in oversight between the shuttering of OFHEO and the establishment of the new regulator.

Meanwhile, the bill neither increased capital requirements nor set a cap on allowed portfolio size— two key risk-reducing reforms that the Fed and Treasury department had repeatedly stressed in testimony before Oxley and his peers in Congress. The regulator was given the authority to impose increased capital requirements and/or limits on portfolio size only if they could show that the GSE’s capital position or portfolio was a threat to its soundness. Critics surmised that this limited authority would not allow quick action by the regulator to avert the failure of a GSE.

Rather than a tough reform bill, the bill was basically a dream come true for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They’d get to continue to grow their portfolios to juice their earnings; they’d have a new affordable housing slush fund to reward legislators who played ball; their new regulator wouldn’t have much sharper teeth than the old one; they wouldn’t have to raise capital or sell assets to meet stricter capital requirements; and they’d get a year without much of anyone looking over their shoulders.

Even the not-so-swift-sometimes Bush Administration recognized that this was not the medicine that was needed for the GSEs. The White House’s Office of Management and Budget issued the one fingered salute to Oxley and the other supporters of the bill:

The Administration has long called for legislation to create a stronger, more effective regulatory regime to improve oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks (“housing government-sponsored enterprises” or “housing GSEs”) and appreciates the considerable efforts of Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker in crafting H.R. 1461. However, H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large. As a result, the Administration opposes the bill.

The regulatory regime envisioned by H.R. 1461 is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions. This regime is of particular concern given that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently hold only about half of the capital of comparable financial institutions. In order for a financial regulator to be respected and credible, it must have the authority and ability to adjust capital requirements of the institutions it oversees as circumstances dictate to ensure prudential operations. An effective oversight regime must also provide for clear review of business activities to ensure the integrity of the housing finance system and consistency with the GSEs’ housing mission. The Administration does not believe that the housing GSEs should be exempt from these important standards of world-class regulation.

In hindsight, the list of reforms the White House was requesting seems just about exactly the ones that might have actually worked.

One more item of note that might shed some light on this flawed legislative effort at “reform”— Oxley had been a recipient of the largesse of the GSEs in the past:

Robert Mitchell Delk, Freddie Mac’s chief Washington lobbyist, hosted a dinner fundraiser for Rep. Michael Oxley at the upscale DC restaurant Galileo.

Perhaps Oxley was making a good faith effort at reform, perhaps not; when you’re accepting these kind of favors from institutions you are charged with reforming, it has to call into question your loyalites. So if Oxley wants to put himself up on a pedestal and point fingers, perhaps he’d like to answer to some criticism of his own actions while he’s at it.”

http://www.sourceoftitle.com/blog_node.aspx?uniq=385

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 24, 2011 10:46 PM
Comment #324972

CT,

Did you happen to forget about the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008? Convenient oversight. It might be helpful if you would at least acknowledge the actual legislative history of GSE regulatory reform and supervision.

Posted by: Rich at June 24, 2011 10:50 PM
Comment #324973

Conservativethinker-
During the inflation of the Housing bubble, Fannie and Freddie were losing market share, losing competition, to poorly regulated non-bank entities whose assets depended on the derivatives market. Those entities were responsible for the vast majority of the new loans, including most of the ones that went bust.

Acknowledging that, though, would require that your people in Congress do something about it.

So you won’t acknowledge it. You’ll rage at the GSEs, but not ask the significant question: why didn’t this REMAIN a housing market downturn?

Do you have an answer for that? Why was AIG, an Insurance Company, in trouble? Why, if Fannie and Freddie were the culprits, did they fall last, well after the housing downturn started? Why were the Investment banks so screwed up by this, to the point where eventually, none truly existed any more?

Why was there a sudden collapse on the money markets?

Mortgage securities, in and of themselves, were not a problem, so long as good mortgages backed them, so long as people weren’t being foreclosed left and right. The real problem for us was that many people on Wall Street were betting that home prices would increase forever, and the various non-bank lenders and credit companies, together with the hedge funds and investment banks were playing fast and loose at the very least with how the issuance of all those mortgages was done.

Fannie and Freddie, thanks to federal regulation, weren’t as exposed as many of the non-bank lenders, but they had a big problem, and that was that the collapse of the housing market was drying up the mortgages they depended upon as a business. You did know, didn’t you, that Fannie and Freddie didn’t finance mortgages themselves. They were purely secondary. For many years, they were the main secondary market, until deregulation allowed other kinds of financial entities to play the game. It’s from that point that the market skyrockets, and the predatory lending and housing boom really kick into gear.

But it’s also from that point that our economy gets high on the drug of false wealth, built on castles in the air built from leveraging.

You fail to see all that financial fraud and derivatives manuipulation in the background, because you already have orders on who is to blame.

Well, sorry, mister, but your BS can’t explain why the banks failed. My explanation can do that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2011 10:52 PM
Comment #324974

SD and Rich, I posted my response at 10:46 PM, Rich at 10:50 PM, and SD at 10:52 PM; which proves to me the only BS is coming from the two of you. How could you possible have time to read my response, let alone go to the link and do the research. Evidently neither of you care about facts. I know that SD lives for the purpose of spreading his own lies and agenda.

Sorry Rich, we were talking about what led up to the financial collaps and by the year 2008, the damage had already been done, so it doesn’t matter what the dems did after 2008..

Stephen, I have been reading your’s and David Remer’s BS for years, conerning Fannie and Freddie, trying to cover up what Frank and Dodd did with the housing market trouble, and it’s just getting old; because you have been lying and are still lying.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 24, 2011 11:10 PM
Comment #324977

Conservativethinker-
84, 83, 24, or Why the Fannie Mae Charge is a lie.

Wall Street’s Heart Of Darkness

Goldman Sachs Bet Against it’s Own Risky Products

Don’t Think Things Are Bad? You’re Not Paying Attention.

You Think The Stimulus Package Is Expensive?

You can drop this ridiculous line of argument right now. I’ve refuted those arguments with documented facts not merely the opinions of your pals in the think-tanks.

You call me a socialist because you don’t want to deal with the crappy shape your version of capitalism is in. You call me a liar, because you want to distract people from the flood of inconvenient facts you damn well know I can bring on your ass!

I can and will draw on my excellent memory of those events to tell people what the real problems are, because we’re not really free of these events until we learn our lessons on them.

I want nothing in particular but a system that works, and that isn’t going to swing into some kind of crisis because we’re letting Wall Street **** things up again.

As for my reading speed, I’m capable of reading a page a minute. I’m capable of writing quite quickly, too. I don’t rely on somebody else’s work to fill up the space I write in, unless I’m quoting somebody to make the point. And then I put it in blockquotes so people don’t make any mistakes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2011 11:29 PM
Comment #324978

CT,

I was responding to your comments to Warped. The article critical of the House Republican bill in 2005 simply says that it didn’t go far enough. Perhaps so. But it did address key risk issues of the GSEs.

Those that blame liberals for the housing debacle frequently overlook one important factor: the investors. Nobody forced private investors to invest trillions of dollars to fund subprime mortgages, ninja mortgages, piggy back loans or minority housing initiatives. It couldn’t have happened without ostensibly highly sophisticated investors purchasing those mortgage backed securities or collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). It was the investment banks that packaged and sold these securities containing toxic mortgages as sound and safe investments. It was insurance companies like AGI that sold CDSs securing the investments. The GSEs were caught in a financial madness. But they didn’t instigate it. In the absence of investors willing to invest in garbage, the housing bubble would never have happened.

Posted by: Rich at June 24, 2011 11:48 PM
Comment #324979

Let me be a little bit more clearer here.

Those who are going after Freddie and Fannie want an association with the government and regulators to be the story, the attachment to a Dodd and Frank the takeaway for people.

Except, as I reported in that first blog I link to, their market share of the new mortgages was less than a fifth of the market. It’s interesting that default rates for the financial institutions and regulated mortgages that Republicans talk about are better than average, given that the natural suspects would be those whose risks turned out worse than average.

See, Fannie and Freddie were highly regulated, and so couldn’t take some of these riskier loans by law. More to the point, they were being defeated in the competition by those who could, and overwhelmingly were.

The folks like Ameriquest, Countrywide and others, who failed much, much earlier.

Who else failed earlier? Bear Stearns and AIG.

An investment bank and an insurance company?

Unless you understand the way Wall Street’s various schemes meshed with the situation in the real estate market, you can’t understand what put them into financial distress. You can’t even properly understand what made a toxic asset toxic in the first place, and why people were so stupid as to have them on their books.

Or, that a lot of this was self-inflicted by the banks on themselves, and on each other through the derivatives market. Why else was it such a calamity for Lehman Brothers to collapse?

The reality is nobody really understood what they were doing on Wall Street. They were chasing profits, but not thinking out the implications of what they were doing, for themselves and others.

But people on your side are running to their defense, trying to shift blame onto the GSEs, tinging it with racial tensions by invokeing the Community Reinvestment Act. Funny, isn’t it, that there too, default rates were less than normal.

Your people will keep us trapped in this blood financial nightmare, if you have your way. This country needs a change from that. We’ve got to learn our lessons, if real capitalism is to survive. Your version? It’s a playground of idiots, of unsupervised children who failed to behave like they promised to behave, keeping themselves honest, their dealings straight.

I’m not going to let that govern our nation’s economic destiny.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2011 11:51 PM
Comment #324982

Same ol, same ol…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 25, 2011 10:01 AM
Comment #324984

CT

SD said “Well, sorry, mister, but your BS can’t explain why the banks failed.”

He was talking to the mirror.

According to SD he is smarter than Wall Street Bankers and insurance companies. That is what is said above.

And, Oh, he fully understands the machinations of high level financial situations.

“Unless you understand the way Wall Street’s various schemes meshed with the situation in the real estate market, you can’t understand what put them into financial distress. You can’t even properly understand what made a toxic asset toxic in the first place, and why people were so stupid as to have them on their books.”

SD

What gall and arrogance. You don’t know diddly squat. And you sit there and say you want the best for the country. Ya, spend more, increase the debt, allow failed theories continue to fail, and more. Some day I pray you gain a smidgen of wisdom and change your thinking. Right now if what you wanted was accomplished in totto, we would all be in forced labor doing shovel ready jobs. That is, shoveling real shit.

Posted by: tom humes at June 25, 2011 11:17 AM
Comment #324987

tom humes-
One reason I source my material is so I can take advantage of the expertise of those who know better. “Wall Street’s Heart of Darkness” depends strongly on Michael Lewis’s article “The End”, and effectively conveys the unbelieveable highlights of the whole situation.

“Goldman Sachs Bet Against it’s Own Risky Products” further illustrates the deceptive behavior at the heart of this crisis, where people knowingly compromised the interests of their clients in order to make a profit.

So on, and so forth. So it’s not merely my word against the folks on Wall Street. This is insiders and folks who understand the market.

Michael Lewis, author of “The End”, also authored the brilliant Liars Poker” which told about the collapse of Solomon Brothers from his inside perspective as a Bond Trader.

You think my approach is arrogant, owing to the fact that I’m not some bond trader or something. The reality is, though, I’m not relying on my own sensibilities. I’m actually listening to and conveying the points of those who know what they’re talking about. Plus, is it any less arrogant to elevate, hell, even deify those who trade on
Wall Street, as though their judgment is not in question?

I find it to be an elitist approach to say that the rest of us can’t understand what’s being done, so we have no standing to question it. Bull****! (notice how I censor that? Take a hint.) I can learn. I can listen to those who do know better than me, and take their lessons in hand. And that’s a heck of a lot more humble an approach than simply pushing a stream of aristocratic presumption my way.

My experience has been that people often measure risks by the frequency of screw-ups, when they should measure them by the potential effect of the downside of the risk. If doing something wrong always results in a problem occuring, people will soon learn not to do it. But if the bad habit only puts you in danger, and you get away with it mostly, like perhaps driving drunk, you might continue to do it.

That is, until something happens. But if you bull**** yourself enough, even then, having suffered and been punished for your habit, you might continue to do that, or worse. And if you have contempt for the risks, for the law?

That’s the thing with all this. Smart people can do dumb and unwise things, and there’s no law of physics that says every trader or exec on Wall Street understands the math or the risks of what they’re doing. There’s also nothing that says that people might just be too arrogant to think the rules apply to them, or that the risks can take them down.

So don’t give me this Job before God act. You don’t have the qualifications to tell me that I can’t question what these people are doing. These people are my equals. Some may know better, but that doesn’t mean I can’t learn better myself. And some things? If you’re collapsing people’s retirement plans, or failing to do your best by your clients, then it doesn’t take an advanced business degree to say that your behavior’s unacceptable.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 25, 2011 12:53 PM
Comment #324991

SD

“You don’t have the qualifications to tell me that I can’t question what these people are doing.”

If you know so much, then tell me what my qualifications are. You don’t know!!!

It is that gall and arrogance showing thru.

“These people are my equals.”

They are crooks according to previous writing from you. So your equals are crooks.

Okay

See, Stephen, the things with liberals is that they say a lot of tones that sound like words but the logic in putting then together is like putting the wrong piece in the wrong place in a picture puzzle. It does not work and the picture in the end cannot be ascertained as to what it should be.

Posted by: tom humes at June 25, 2011 3:03 PM
Comment #324994

TH, SD’s sole purpose in life is to protect and defend liberal socialists politicians. He has been saying the same things over and over, hoping that someone will believe his tripe. I’m sorry to say, he only shuts up after the shock of loosing an election. Last November, he was silent for a few days, and then he began his same old BS again. He will deny, deny, deny until Nov. 2012 and then he will be silent for a week or two. After that he will be trying to make us believe the newly elected conservatives and president don’t really mean anything…. but just wait until 2014…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 25, 2011 4:33 PM
Comment #324995

CT

You made more sense in a paragraph than SD does on pages of words glued together to form a column of type that a proof reader reading for clarity would go bonkers and leave sooner than Newt G. team.

Posted by: tom humes at June 25, 2011 4:38 PM
Comment #324996

th, your last submission (comment 324995) absolutely epitomizes your level of comprehension and knowledge put together……zilch.
It does, however, go a long way in clarifying how such great (???) minds can work so well together.

Posted by: jane doe at June 25, 2011 5:10 PM
Comment #324997

It is always nice to hear from jane. While seldom adding to the discussion of the topic, one can rely upon her to be critical of those who do.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 25, 2011 6:02 PM
Comment #324999

tom humes-
What is this, a defense by condescension? I’ll stick to doing things my way, and people can judge for themselves whether I got things right. If they know better, they can illuminate us, unlike some, who, disagreeing, decide to simply befoul somebody’s reputation.

I can give people the reason to believe, the reason to be outrage, not just dump my sensibilities on them.

As for my comment on equality, it’s like I said, if I poisoned my neighbor the way a chemical company might, I would go to jail. If I stole from them the way Wall Street Financiers have stolen from them, I would go to jail. If I acted like they did, society would punish me.

So, when I speak of equality, I say yes, I do consider myself the equal of those crooks, and as a consequence, they should receive the punishment I would receive for being so dishonest, for doing those bad things.

As for other comments? I wish there was somebody more interesting, better informed to debate with. Very often, folks like you make doing this very little fun. The comfort I can take is that you folks give me the opportunity to knock down and debunk your talking points, but I get exhausted with knocking down the same stupid crap over and over again.

Conservativethinker-

TH, SD’s sole purpose in life is to protect and defend liberal socialists politicians.

You really make this work very boring. It’s like talking to a magic 8-ball. The shape comes up through the murky ink, and it reads LIBERAL SOCIALIST.

You’re from a rhetorical school of thought that seems to focus on discrediting the person first, and dealing with the issues last. I take the opposite approach.

On the subject of being silent? No, I might take a week or two off, or lower my tempo following an election, but pretty soon I’m back to posting. My responses to losing elections have been, so far, nothing like you say. If you don’t believe me, just check the dates on my posts. In every case, I was back writing again very soon. I had five posts up in the month after the 2010 election, and five up after 2004.

Still, if this is your party’s idea of how to win the next election, that is, killing a 40 year old jobs creating program (I know, you have an excuse, you always do.) then I have very little to fear. Republicans believe they can bash Democrats on their way back to power, but they’ve gone out of their way to not do what they were sent to Washington to do: create jobs.

Republicans are brilliant at finding fault these days, but they can’t hide their own faults from the American people, not when they’re the ones doing their best to paralyze our government’s response to the economy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 25, 2011 7:05 PM
Comment #325000

RF

jane doe appears to have a dyslectic thought process in these discussions. What ever she says is either opposite or backward. I take what she “contributes” as minor and ineffective to me, but highly exalted by liberals, progressives, socialists, et al.

Posted by: tom humes at June 25, 2011 7:08 PM
Comment #325003
but highly exalted by liberals

Where do you get this idea?

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 25, 2011 7:34 PM
Comment #325004

SD

It is hard to debate a broken record or on repeat.

Posted by: tom humes at June 25, 2011 8:26 PM
Comment #325006

Thanks TH for the support. Would it be considered bragging, if I agree with you, lol. Just kidding, I don’t want SD to get his nickers in a wad, anymore than he already does…

SD has briefed us on whatr he does at election time; but didn’t I say the same thing already?

SD, get rid of a 40 year old jobs creating program? Evidently you and Reid’s liberal socialist group didn’t get the memo, “WE ARE BROKE”. And pray tell, what democrat jobs program ever created a job in the private sector?

“Republicans are brilliant at finding fault these days, but they can’t hide their own faults from the American people, not when they’re the ones doing their best to paralyze our government’s response to the economy.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 25, 2011 07:05 PM


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Stephen, you are hilarious. The economy has been paralyzed ever since obama won the election. The republicans don’t have to attack obama’s economic recovery; he’s doing a good enough job himself. Stephen, do ever get tired of defending loosers?

“President Obama acknowledged last week that the “shovel-ready” construction projects of his $789 billion economic stimulus plan were “not as shovel-ready as we expected.” The first progress report from the administration’s Jobs and Competitiveness Council blamed unwieldy government regulations and permits for the delay in putting Americans back to work.

When the stimulus plan became law in February 2009, the President promised it would keep unemployment under 8 percent. He said the Recovery and Reinvestment Act would save or create 3 million jobs by the end of last year. Instead, nearly one in 10 Americans remains without work.

The President recently recast his ambitious forecast for economic recovery and admitted that the stimulus did not achieve its mandate as planned. He said last week, “It will take years to get back to where we need to be.”

Unfortunately, unemployed Americans and struggling businesses cannot afford to wait years. Nor do they have a reason to be optimistic unless the strategy changes. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the country’s unemployment rate has grown to 9.1 percent as of last month — a far cry from the 6.7 percent rate that the costly stimulus was supposed to have achieved by now.”

http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2011/06/23/after-stimulus-failure-what%e2%80%99s-next-in-store/

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 25, 2011 9:09 PM
Comment #325010

“Stephen, you are hilarious. The economy has been paralyzed ever since obama won the election.”

CT,

Your simply wrong. When Obama took office the Great Recession was in full fury. It began in December of 2007 and accelerated in 2008 through the first half of 2009. At that time, the economy stabilized and GDP went from negative growth to positive. According to the NBER, the Great Recession ended in June of 2009. At that point, job losses and unemployment began to stabilize. While unemployment remains high, the economy has grown since then but not a sufficient rate to generate the necessary jobs. This is not a new phenomena, the term jobless recovery was first coined during the early Clinton years and was a characteristic of the first Bush recession.

What do you propose to do about the economy? How would you increase the number of jobs? Its easy to criticize, it is harder to provide an alternative. But have at it.

Posted by: Rich at June 25, 2011 9:32 PM
Comment #325011

“At that time, the economy stabilized and GDP went from negative growth to positive. According to the NBER, the Great Recession ended in June of 2009. At that point, job losses and unemployment began to stabilize. While unemployment remains high, the economy has grown since then but not a sufficient rate to generate the necessary jobs.”


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Rich, you are as good at comedy as SD. Perhaps you could go on the road and explain to the 17% of Americans who are unemployed that the economy is no longer paralized. hahaha

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 25, 2011 11:35 PM
Comment #325012

tom humes-
If it’s true, it bears repeating. If it’s false, it bears opposition. What you say is false, so what I know to be true needs to be said.

Conservativethinker-
Laugh. Then tell me your own joke: how persist job cuts improve the economy, much less the unemployment situation?

Our big problem is a lack of growth. Growth doesn’t occure because people don’t have jobs. Jobs aren’t there because the customers aren’t there, so it’s not worth anything to create jobs to serve non-existent customers.

So, your solution is to dig the hole deeper, in order to show everybody that their uncertainty is misplaced.

But is it now? No. It’s not misplaced. There won’t be a real economic recovery until we get back to doing what we’re were doing: the ridiculously simple idea of simply creating jobs directly, and approach that has been more success at creating grow than your “cut jobs for the poor and middle class, taxes for the rich approach.”

Laugh at yourself. You’re the one who continues to help this country beat it’s head against the wall, effectively trying to torture the economy back into confidence, back into growth. The economic beatings will continue until morale improves, right?

It’s an abusive economic policy, and it needs to end, and those who have pushed it, deserve to lose power.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 25, 2011 11:54 PM
Comment #325013

SD

Be explicit. What did I say that was false. Blanket statements are rhetoric. Cheap way of avoiding the battle. You are good at that.

Posted by: tom humes at June 26, 2011 12:44 AM
Comment #325016

tom humes-
Well, you asked for it.

Factually there should not be a single federal gun law, period. The Constitution covers that very simply in Amendment 2. All federal laws are un-Constitutional according to the Second Amendment.

By that, I assume you mean all federal gun laws. You’re wrong. So long as the right to own and use guns remains for a law-abiding citizen, such system fall under interstate commerce.

No, you are a liberal socialist, and you believe like all liberal socialist; that Americans do not have an individual right to own a gun.

I know my own opinions both political and gunwise, so this statement is categorically false. Trouble is, how else do I make my state of mind known, except by statements you reject? Even so, socialism is not my beliefs system, capitalism is, and I do not believe in obstructing gun rights for weapons of reasonable firepower. Of course, you’ll tell me what I believe is reasonable, too, but most guns on the market, guns with considerable ability to kill, fall under my personal definition.

As I am the only person who can truly comment on what I think as a matter of fact, rather than opinion, I have to defend my views, and I’ll defend them as long as you’re distorting and mistating them so as to scare and disgust other readers about by views illegitimately.

It doesn’t help when you distort the views of me, and others like me, when you make illegitimately broad declarations of what somebody’s beliefs are, despite what they’ve explicitly said.

If you really wanted to show that somebody believed other than how they really said, you can construct arguments that compare the substance of what they say elsewhere to their claims, or lines of argument that force them to reveal their true opinion by bits and pieces.

Instead, you jump the gun, using arguments pretty much designed to dismiss my arguments as those of conspirator in a huge plot to take your guns.

Reread the 2nd amendment and study it carefully. There is no question or gray area about the wording.

Then why has the Supreme Court repeatedly heard cases about just that? Rather than say right out, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, the Second amendment prefaces it by saying something about “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” meaning that this right is not simply given for the pleasure of those people. It is a right in the service of a responsibility, by its first phrase’s inclusion.

You state your belief as fact, but your belief does not encompass the beliefs of all the people who have indeed argued over it. Just because you see no grey area doesn’t mean none exists.

As for “shall not be infringed” being absolute? If it is absolute, then all manner of absurdity is possible, going all the way up to the private ownership of a nuclear bomb.

We cannot simply overlook the fact that military weapons have grown more powerful, and that one weapon now has more ability to undo the peace of a given community than it once did.

I think the twentieth century shows us multiple occasions where the simple ability to hold onto rifles and handguns, not even always automatics or semiautomatics, was enough to frustrate an army of considerably greater firepower. Any set of laws that allows for a person to purchase semi-automatic rifles and handguns, and keep them, can be argued to satisfy the intent and the effect of not infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

I don’t believe the right to keep and bear arms should be taken to mean just any weapon, or any kind of ammunition. I don’t think it means that the sale and distribution of such weaponry cannot be regulated either. The constitution was not friendly to an eager use of force by its citizens to overthrow the government. They did not want the use of force as anything but the last option, when all other rights and avenues of relief, what you might call “first amendment remedies” were available.

Or put another way, the purpose of the second amendment was not to give people a way out of satisfying the obligations of the other parts of the constitution. That simply follows logically. That is why Congress has the power to put down insurrections and riots, despite the desire for many for citizens to keep their weapons as a means to resist tyranny and defend themselves.

What the right gets wrong these days, is its sense of balance of the tensions between these two needs. They pull it too far one way or the other.

But simply put, the best idea must be to balance the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and constitutional government authority to govern.

That authority is given to it, in part, for the sake of ensuring domestic tranquility, and explicitly given to put down insurrections and riots. The rest of the Constitution is not an afterthought to the Second Amendment. Order must be kept while the right to keep and bear arms is maintained, and the framers recognized that.

If you allow to much firepower to easily find its way into people’s hands, that firepower will be used to disrupt society, which will prompt either an increased arming of the police and other officials, an increased use of militarized units to enforce the law, or more draconian gun control than what we’re speaking about here. There is a point of equilibrium here which you’re too stubbon to recognize, where the most powerful weapons are restricted, but the ability of the average citizen to arm themselves sufficiently to resist tyranny is ensured.

There were hours of testimony and you took a two minute exchange and tried to make something of it. Rep. Maloney of New York is a strong anti-gun advocate. Chairman Issa just wanted to warn her that the investigation was not toward legislation but to get facts and try to bring prosecution to those who contributed to the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. At no time was Chairman Issa trying to keep the ATF agents from answering questions and that was mutual between the majority and minority parties.

Well…

And if I understand this correctly, there is no federal statute that specifically prohibits straw purchases. Is that correct?

FORCELLI: No, ma’am. There is a statute, but the statute doesn’t carry significant jail
time.

[…]

MALONEY: Well, working with my staff, when we looked into it, straw purchases are typically charged under Section 922 and 924 of the criminal code, and these sections make it a crime to knowingly make a false statement. And in this case the false statement would be when a straw purchaser lies on a Form 4473 when he or she makes a straw purchase. This was the way that they went after straw purchases in other states. Are you aware with this — of these two sections, and knowingly making a false statement? Are you aware of that particular…

FORCELLI: I am, ma’am. And, again, I’ll just state that — that in many instances these
cases weren’t prosecuted by the U.S. attorney’s office.

MALONEY: But I want to get back to — to the false statement. And what is the false
statement that they would make on such a form that they could use in prosecutions? Are
you aware?

FORCELLI: It — it — well, the most blatant one is that there’s a box that you check
whether or not you’re purchasing the firearm for yourself. A straw purchaser clearly is
not. They’re buying that gun merely to deliver it to another person.
The other lies would be sometimes people put false addresses…
[emphasis mine]

And here’s where the little tiff occurs. He’s actually trying to interrupt that line of question, and the quotes will leave little doubt of that.

MALONEY: And getting back to your statement on the prosecutions, the border state U.S. attorneys have complained that district court judges view these prosecutions as mere paper violations. And have you heard this criticism before?

FORCELLI: I have, and I agree with it. I think perhaps a mandatory minimum one year
sentence might deter an individual from buying a gun. Some people view this no more
consequential than doing 65 in a 55.

MALONEY: And the Justice Department…
ISSA: If the — if the gentlelady will suspend, I want to caution the witnesses that the
scope of this, your testimony here, is limited, and that it’s not about proposed legislation
and the like, and under our House rules would not fall within the scope of this. So
anecdotally you can have opinions but ultimately it would not be considered valid
testimony.

CUMMINGS (?): Point of order, Mr. Chairman?

(CROSSTALK)

ISSA: Would the gentleman state his point of order?

CUMMINGS (?): Yes. Let me just — the — Officer Forcelli in his — in his testimony has
a statement, Mr. Chairman, that I read, where he says that these firearms are ending up on
both sides of the border. And I think it’s only fair that since it’s his statement that she, and
that’s — and that’s basically what she’s pretty much going to, but…

ISSA: The gentlelady can — can ask any question she wants within the scope of the
hearing. Under Rule 11, Clause 2k8 (ph), it’s the discretion of the committee as to the —
the breadth of the — of the testimony.
Any question related to the operation or the failures of Fast and Furious or factual
indications of what occurred in Arizona or throughout the system are within the scope of
the hearing.
Proposed legislation at a federal level and whether or not they should be changed are
outside the scope of not only this hearing but would not ordinarily fall under the
jurisdiction of this committee. Just to make it clear.

CUMMINGS: Further — further point — point of order, Mr. Chairman. It’s my
understanding of the rules is that you can — you can object to the question but you can’t
tell the witness what to testify to.

ISSA: Under…

(CROSSTALK)

MALONEY: Well, preserving my time, I appreciate the chairman’s statement. And I
appreciate your statement earlier when you said you wanted full answers and full
prosecution.
And I think it’s certainly within the scope of this hearing to understand why we’re not
getting a full prosecution. And the allegation that they call them paper excuses as
opposed to a valid, concrete way to react I think is a valid way to go forward.

ISSA: Will the gentlelady…

(CROSSTALK)

MALONEY: I’m supporting your statements.

ISSA: If the gentlelady would suspend for just a moment. The gentlelady’s questions and
whether or not the gentleman believes that law enforcement was doing its job or that the
courts were properly enforcing and whether that may have led to actions is fully within
the scope.
Anything that these individuals witnessed in or around Fast and Furious is certainly
within the scope. I only caution we’re not here to talk about proposed gun legislation. It
would be outside the scope of this hearing.

MALONEY: Well, I wasn’t discussing that. I was trying to figure out why the Justice
Department and the I.G. found that prosecutors often decline these gun cases. I want to
know why they’re declining them.
And, to quote from the testimony, one of you said because they believe it is difficult to
obtain convictions on these violations and because they believe it is difficult to obtain
paperwork from Mexico.
And my question is, are these valid excuses not to bring these cases? I think that’s a valid
question to get to why we’re not getting prosecutions in these cases?
Are these valid excuses, to say they are paper excuses not to bring it?

FORCELLI: I believe not, ma’am. And, again, to go after the mid-level and upper level
members of a cartel you need to start — unless you have evidence on them immediately —
with the people at the bottom of the food chain.
When — when straw buyer cases are dismissed because of excuses made up by the United
States attorney’s office, as opposed to when you have factual evidence that shows that
person’s committed a crime, then you can’t prosecute that — that bottom feeder to move
up to the next level.

MALONEY: One of you in your testimonies called these laws to prosecute “toothless”.
And could you explain to me why are existing straw purchase laws toothless?

FORCELLI: My opinion, ma’am, is that with these types of cases, for somebody to testify
against members of a cartel where the alternative is seeing a probation officer once a
month, they’re going to opt toward, you know, not cooperating with the law enforcement
authorities.

MALONEY: And what would help your interactions with the U.S. attorney’s office? Mr.
Casa, Mr. Forcelli or others, what would help you to be able to be part of getting
convictions in bringing those to justice that are part of these straw purchases that led to
the death of Mrs. Terry’s son?

ISSA: The gentlelady’s time has expired.
But you certainly can answer that.

(UNKNOWN): Well, I believe, first and foremost, they probably need more resources at
the U.S. attorney’s office in Arizona. The — there are an overwhelming numbers of gun
crimes occurring there. And if they don’t have the resources to prosecute them, then I
would imagine they would need some assistance in those regards.

Then we get this line of questioning from Rep. Tierney:

TIERNEY: Thank you very much.
And my condolences to the family as well and friends on that. And I’m not going to be
asking you any questions, but I don’t want you to interpret that as being unmindful of
your pain and your sacrifice on that. And I hope you accept it as such.
But I would like to talk to the three special agents on this, a little bit, and go back.
First of all, I do suspect that the Mexican government understands that there are guns
coming from the United States into Mexico. I mean, Mexico’s ambassador Arturo
Sarukhan has stated pretty clearly that he thinks guns from the United States have been
feeding violence and overwhelming firepower is being unleashed by drug traffickers. So I
think they’re quite aware of that.
But before this Fast and Furious became the policy that we’re all seriously questioning
now, was it the Project Gunrunner — was that the policy of the government from 2006 to
2009?

FORCELLI: Sir, if I may, Project Gunrunner was a funding source that led to staffing many groups along the Southwest border offices with agents. Project Gunrunner was preceded by something that they referred to as Operation Southbound. And what that did was we identified straw buyers through the cooperation of gun dealers or through reviewing documents of past firearms purchases, and then we would go out and do car stops and do interdictions. And many of those interdictions, there were no prosecutions for the reasons I stated earlier, but the point was that we lawfully seized the weapons based on probable cause and those weapons wouldn’t hurt anybody. Now, there were plenty of times where, if a gun dealer was suspicious of a person and we would stop them and that person was a law-abiding citizen, they went on their way with their lawfully purchased firearm and our apology. But if they were criminals, those guns were in our custody, whether they went to jail or not, and they never hurt a soul.

TIERNEY: Were there any appreciable amount of weapons, you think, getting through
that system, still making it to Mexico?

FORCELLI: Well, absolutely. And it’s — it’s the nature of the straw purchasing. I mean, a
straw purchaser is somebody who is legitimate. If the gun dealer isn’t suspicious and he
makes that sale and then that person then hands it off to somebody who’s going to bring it
down to Mexico, we’re going to have no way of knowing that until the gun is recovered
in — in Mexico.

TIERNEY: Right. So, in fact, you’re familiar with the Icnadozian (ph) case?

Let’s pause for a moment here. You can answer this question for yourself, because This is the case he’s referencing, and which I referenced in one of my responses to you. Let’s move forward:

FORCELLI: I was the supervisor in that investigation, sir. TIERNEY: Well, I assume you were unhappy with that result?

FORCELLI: Extremely.

TIERNEY: And in that case, didn’t the judge make a determination that essentially — he
threw the case out after about eight days of trial on the premise that there was no proof
that the ultimate person that got that gun was a person not allowed or not lawfully in
possession?

FORCELLI: Correct. What he was stating was that we couldn’t prove that he was
supplying prohibited persons. That wasn’t the allegation or the nature of the case.
And, again that’s why, after that happened, I tried to present this to the United States
attorney’s office in New York, which is just incredible on doing international narcotics
cases.
And had we had one wire transfer or one banking transaction occur in that district, I’m —
I’m convinced we would have had a successful prosecution there.

I pointed out these issues, and you say something like this:

I will repeat. You have done a disservice to all those involved as witnesses as well as those representatives who serve on the committee.

I said, basically, that the situation was more complicated than Issa wanted to admit, that trying to artificially limit it was a revealing act on his part.

TIERNEY: So if a person goes into a store, a gun store, and buys two or three or four hand guns, does federal law require them to report that?

FORCELLI: Yes, sir.

TIERNEY: And if I were a person who went into a store, and I bought four or five long
guns?

FORCELLI: No such requirement, sir.
TIERNEY: What if I went in, and you’re familiar with the — the Romanian AKs?

FORCELLI: Yes.

TIERNEY: All right. And it’s fair to say there’s a high amount or a
large proportion of the guns that are going to Mexico constitute AKs, the Romanian
AKs?

FORCELLI: Absolutely.

TIERNEY: So they’re coming from Romania to this country. They get doctored up and
changed, and then they move on down to Mexico?

FORCELLI: Yes, sir.

TIERNEY: All right. So if I went into a store and bought any number of those, the store
owner doesn’t have to report that.

FORCELLI: No.

TIERNEY: If it was reported to you, would that give you some indication that here’s
something you ought to investigate?

FORCELLI: Sir, it’s my opinion, just like we monitor monies wired to the Middle East
and we monitor how much Sudafed somebody buys in a pharmacy nowadays because
that’s what utilized to make methamphetamine, it would be similar to that.
Not everybody who buys more than one gun is a criminal, but it would give us an
indicator that, hey, why is this person buying seven AKs? Maybe that’s somebody we
want to speak to.
Now, we’re not aware of those multiple sales, unless one of two things happens. A is we
have a cooperative gun dealer who calls us and says, “Hey, something’s not right here,” or
B, that weapon is — one of those weapons is found at a — at a crime scene and traced
back to that individual and then we go pull the paperwork manually from the gun dealer.

TIERNEY: Is there any law enforcement reason or rationale you can think of why we
would not want to have that information reported?
Multiple sales of long arms like Romanian AKs or something?

FORCELLI: I can only give you my personal opinion, sir. It would be a good indicator
for us, a good starting point, much like it is handguns.

TIERNEY: But no reasons you can think of why you wouldn’t want to have it reported. It
wouldn’t interfere with law enforcement efforts if it was reported?

FORCELLI: In my opinion it would help our efforts, sir.

My contention is that this isn’t the simple problem of a screwed up investigation. That Gun laws, reporting laws, poor prosecutions, and other factors played into this, and that trying to turn this into a big partisan political scandal does a disservice

Repeatedly, you’ve accused me of siding with those who screwed this up, or defending that screw-up. I haven’t. I just have my doubts as to whether a whole bunch of scapegoating up on Capitol hill is going to save any lives, particularly like those of the man whose death helped create this controversy.

Sorry that your character cannot praise someone that normally you oppose.

I’ve praised Bush when he did something to deserve it. Amazing how many character attacks like this I have to field from you.

You’ve said a lot that was provably false, or would be if you didn’t phrase it in the form of an opinion to avoid direct factual challenge.

When I believe something to be true, I don’t back down because of peer pressure. I don’t allow insults to deflect me from sticking to those facts. Your low opinion of me won’t ever be persuasive. Instead, it will only intensify my desire to stick to my guns, for how much more shameful is it to abandon the truth, if I’m abandoning it to avoid being insulted or berated?

It makes it worse that you refuse to acknowledge how nuanced my real views are. Rather than acknowledge that I’m not a fanatic about gun control, you do your best to paint me as one. Now this might be a useful approach in trying to propagandize for gun rights, but politically, it’s dumb, because a person like me, who might argue for some restraint in gun laws, some recognition that its not a magic bullet for dealing with violence, gets forced to deal with somebody who won’t even acknowledge there’s a problem here at all, and can’t in good conscience support that approach.

You also fail to see the nuance in my appreciation of the situation, the willingness on my part to say that the behavior of the ATF higher-ups was stupid and vindictive. As I have no particular beef with the agency, that’s significant. I do see plenty of problems in what was done, but because I include certain gun control measures, like increased reporting, tougher sanctions for straw-buying, you throw me into the lion’s den and condemn me as a socialist.

Yeah, and I keep on telling you that I’m a capitalist.

Your blanket statements are many, your rhetoric often cheap and ill-tempered. You’re willing to hold me to a higher standard than you do yourself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 26, 2011 8:27 AM
Comment #325017

stephen

“If you allow to much firepower to easily find its way into people’s hands, that firepower will be used to disrupt society,”


that is simply not true. that says to me you do not trust the average american to act respsonsibly. i would argue the average american is more resonsible and trustworhty than the average politician. the fact that millions of these guns are already in private hands tells me your arguement is hollow.


“We cannot simply overlook the fact that military weapons have grown more powerful,”

not true, both of the two most common cartriges used by our military the 5.56/223rem, and the 7.62/308win are commonly used hunting cartriges and were around and in civilian use before they were adopted by the military. prior to that the standard rifle cartrige used was the 30-06 springfield another very popular hunting cartrige. the m-16/M-4 is no more powerful than the civilian AR-15 it just possesses a select fire capability.

Posted by: dbs at June 26, 2011 9:35 AM
Comment #325018

SD

Typed a lot as usual said and proved nothing.

What you quoted and your reason for this post still don’t match. Your quotes go well beyond what that brief exchange about legislation. A host of words does not prove anything. And you proved that.

Posted by: tom humes at June 26, 2011 10:12 AM
Comment #325021

tom humes-
What I proved is that there is a sense among law enforcement officers that the gun control laws are lacking, and there’s a good case to be made that these laws don’t affect a law-abiding citizen’s ability to get a gun for defense and sport.

I also proved that the same officers testified that the laws on strawbuyers were weak, and that law enforcement agents believed they couldn’t get people to flip on those laws.

Additionally, I provided evidence that this problem goes beyond one operation, and that there are problem that led to this tragedy beyond just the failed sting operation.

The question is, what have you proved, or disproved for that matter? You don’t seen to care to take the effort to confront my arguments on the fact. Instead, you just push brief verdicts that contradict me, circular arguments void of any other proof than their own restatement.

If you have nothing else to say, then I’ll just let you make your comments by yourself. I’m not interested in a one-sided debate.

dbs-

that is simply not true. that says to me you do not trust the average american to act respsonsibly. i would argue the average american is more resonsible and trustworhty than the average politician. the fact that millions of these guns are already in private hands tells me your arguement is hollow.

I trust the average American to act responsibly. But trusting averages and dealing more toughly with individuals whose actions endanger public safety are two different things. It’s hollow to argue that because the average man you could pick off the street isn’t a criminal, that you don’t have to address what criminals do with guns, or bank accounts, or anything else. We don’t write laws for the sake of the actions of the well behaved.

The simple fact is, stronger weapons do more damage. Making them more difficult to attain reduces the probability of mass casualty attacks

“We cannot simply overlook the fact that military weapons have grown more powerful,”

not true, both of the two most common cartriges used by our military the 5.56/223rem, and the 7.62/308win are commonly used hunting cartriges and were around and in civilian use before they were adopted by the military. prior to that the standard rifle cartrige used was the 30-06 springfield another very popular hunting cartrige. the m-16/M-4 is no more powerful than the civilian AR-15 it just possesses a select fire capability.

There are two sides to my response. The first is to note that since the days of the Revolutionary war, guns have considerably increased their power and accuracy. Is that controversial?

Smoothbore musket that had to be hand reloaded gave way to repeating rifles that fired cartridges. Repeating rifles gave way to semiautomatic and automatic weapons, not to mention machine guns, all designed to kill more people at a time, increasing the firepower of the average soldier.

Still uncontroversial?

Those points made, I’ll make this one: I’ve pretty much conceded here that a basic grade of military weaponry should be available to the average person. But then we get into questions about things like automatic weapons, machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars, etc. Stuff that is part of modern warfare, stuff that in the wrong hands, in the ands of criminals can be harmful.

So, what I would argue is that we should at least keep better track of guns and their purchasing. Make it easier for law enforcement to track down and punish smugglers. Give the laws on the abuse of the commerce of weapons some teeth, so that the gun culture doesn’t continue to attain this reputation of irresponsibility.

I can understand the frustration of gun dealers, folks who don’t want to be supplying the cartel with weapons to use on our people. I can understand the frustration of ATF agents who not only had to watch weapons walk in the Fast and Furious case, but also have to operate out there with the knowledge that many weapons will go over the borders and come back and kill Americans.

Can you understand my frustration, that folks on the right seem to be more afraid of a non-existent conspiracy than a real, organized effort to smuggle weapons, one that makes America’s gun laws look stupidly negligent. There are ways to avoid infringing on the gun rights of law-abiding citizens, yet deny their use and sale to the the wrong people. But we got to have better things to charge them with than lying on a form, and if we want to know where they’re going and where they’re coming from, we’ve got to have a better reporting system than we got right now.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 26, 2011 3:26 PM
Comment #325022

SD

You proved nothing, period. Get over it.

Posted by: tom humes at June 26, 2011 3:44 PM
Comment #325023

Stephen has proven to normal people…..you seem to be leading the pack of those not fitting into that category.
Get over yourself!

Posted by: jane doe at June 26, 2011 4:42 PM
Comment #325026

jd

It has never been about me. Sorry to disappoint you once again.

When your friend SD lives up to his billing I will debate him. Until he quits repeating himself and his liberal talking points and calls that proof, well what is there to debate. He can have all the opinions he wants, but don’t call them fact or proof or substance.

Posted by: tom humes at June 26, 2011 7:05 PM
Comment #325030

Stephen,

Give it up. It is crystal clear that liberals, like you, simply want to disarm Americans in violation of their 2d Amendment rights. For example, the real purpose of the “Gunrunner” and “Fast and Furious” operations was to provide an excuse for more stringent gun laws. The ostensible purpose of stopping gun running to Mexican drug cartels was nothing more than a pretext. Look how you have argued about closing a loophole allowing “straw man” purchases of large quantities of assault weapons intended for drug cartels. The fact that Bush started and expanded these operations means nothing. He’s a RHINO.

If an American wants to own a tank, an armed F-16 or any other modern weapon, the 2d Amendment gives him that right. Its an absolute right. How else do you propose that Americans defend themselves against an invasion or an internal Marxist revolution?


Posted by: Rich at June 26, 2011 7:50 PM
Comment #325031

Tom,

If you can’t present counter argument to Stephen’s “liberal talking points” then so be it. But, stop asserting that his arguments have no merit or substance simply because they are liberal arguments. That is beyond silly. They are, of course, his opinion based upon his analysis of the data, his philosophy and his experiences. The data and studies that he references in support of his arguments may very well be selective. That doesn’t make them wrong. If you have different data or a different interpretation, then present it in opposition. That’s called a debate.

Posted by: Rich at June 26, 2011 8:04 PM
Comment #325032

stephen

“that you don’t have to address what criminals do with guns, or bank accounts, or anything else. We don’t write laws for the sake of the actions of the well behaved.”


and we don’t infringe ont he rights of the majority because of the actions of a few.


“The simple fact is, stronger weapons do more damage. Making them more difficult to attain reduces the probability of mass casualty attacks.”


it only makes them harder to attain for those who are law abidding. criminals will still attain them with little problem.


“Repeating rifles gave way to semiautomatic and automatic weapons, not to mention machine guns, all designed to kill more people at a time, increasing the firepower of the average soldier.”


machine guns are automatic weapons. like i said earlier automatic fire is the least affective.


“I’ve pretty much conceded here that a basic grade of military weaponry should be available to the average person. But then we get into questions about things like automatic weapons, machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars, etc. Stuff that is part of modern warfare, stuff that in the wrong hands, in the ands of criminals can be harmful.”


anythinig in the wrong hands can be harmful. let’s be honest bad guys are going to get thier hands on weapons regardless of the laws. passing more restrictive laws only affects those who observe them.


“but also have to operate out there with the knowledge that many weapons will go over the borders and come back and kill Americans.”

this could be stopped by simply putting armed US soldiers , or marines on the border. let’s be honest 20, or 30k battle hardened marines could make quick work of armed drug smugglers. that would be an effective deterent if the US gov’t would actually grow some balls.

“Can you understand my frustration, that folks on the right seem to be more afraid of a non-existent conspiracy”

apparently you haven’t lived long enough. the rest of us know better.


Posted by: dbs at June 26, 2011 8:40 PM
Comment #325033

dbs,

“and we don’t infringe ont he rights of the majority because of the actions of a few.

it only makes them harder to attain for those who are law abidding. criminals will still attain them with little problem.

anythinig in the wrong hands can be harmful. let’s be honest bad guys are going to get thier hands on weapons regardless of the laws. passing more restrictive laws only affects those who observe them.

this could be stopped by simply putting armed US soldiers , or marines on the border. let’s be honest 20, or 30k battle hardened marines could make quick work of armed drug smugglers. that would be an effective deterent if the US gov’t would actually grow some balls.”


All of these statements are so wrong on so many levels I hardly know where to start.

Suffice to say, if this is how you truly feel then why bother to have any laws at all?

Oh and BTW, our southern border is nearly 2,000 miles long.
Why don’t we just declare war with Mexico while we’re at it?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 26, 2011 9:48 PM
Comment #325035

Stephen

You are debating people who reads the word “militia” in the 2nd amendment to mean insurgency. Who feel an entitlement is a government program that the other person receives. Who thinks God only took the side of the United States in WWII after we became involved, but evidently ignored the 6 million Jews who were slaughtered. Took the side of Americans in our American Revolution, but ignored the native American who would be decimated by the European immigration. Who evidently calls blowing apart animals with M16 style bullets hunting. Who believes that laws are useless because criminals would ignore them anyways, and good guys never become criminals.

Posted by: Cube at June 27, 2011 1:45 AM
Comment #325036

rocky

“All of these statements are so wrong on so many levels I hardly know where to start.”

how so?

“Suffice to say, if this is how you truly feel then why bother to have any laws at all?”

your right, after all we have some extremely tuff drug laws, and they seem to be making it much harder to buy drugs.

“Oh and BTW, our southern border is nearly 2,000 miles long.
Why don’t we just declare war with Mexico while we’re at it?”


declare war on mexico? what? our police and border patrol are seriously out gunned down there. our citizens along the border are in danger from dangerous smugglers. the military with the ability to respond would go a long way towards shutting down these land routes. of course if we put them down there just to take notes as obama did they’ll be of no use.

Posted by: dbs at June 27, 2011 7:59 AM
Comment #325037

dbs,

OK, so let’s break them down on by one;

“and we don’t infringe ont he rights of the majority because of the actions of a few.”

Yeah, we do. Laws keep honest people honest. We give up some rights because of the actions of a few, and because we give up some of our rights we are able to prosecute those that break the law when they are caught.

“it only makes them harder to attain for those who are law abidding. criminals will still attain them with little problem.”

So what? Do you really need the weapons you can’t have, or do you merely want them because you think you have a right to them?
Like I said before, these weapons are for hunting humans, not beasts, and there are plenty of guns out there with plenty of stopping power that are legal.

“anythinig in the wrong hands can be harmful. let’s be honest bad guys are going to get thier hands on weapons regardless of the laws. passing more restrictive laws only affects those who observe them.”

Well duh. Why pass any laws at all if it only affects those people that would obey the law?

“this could be stopped by simply putting armed US soldiers , or marines on the border. let’s be honest 20, or 30k battle hardened marines could make quick work of armed drug smugglers. that would be an effective deterent if the US gov’t would actually grow some balls.”

Perhaps we can dig up the body of General “Blackjack” Pershing, and he can lead these Marines as he lead the chase of Pancho Villa. 20 or 30 thousand Marines are more likely to cause an international incident than they are to stopping drug smugglers.

The Mexican border is nearly 2,000 miles long, and most of it is a vast wasteland. You can’t use the military in this country as law enforcement, and you can’t send troops into Mexico without causing the aforementioned incident.

Perhaps we could just declare Marshall law. If you are whining about your rights now…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 27, 2011 9:29 AM
Comment #325039

rocky


“Yeah, we do. Laws keep honest people honest. We give up some rights because of the actions of a few, and because we give up some of our rights we are able to prosecute those that break the law when they are caught.”


what rights would those be? do we need more laws to prosecute someone for murder, armed robbery, kidnapping? without new more restrictive gun laws we won’t be able to prosecute these criminals based on the actions commited not the implements used? current laws already make the prosecutions possible.

is it alredy illegal to give a gun to a felon? i think so. the laws we already have are more than adequate.

“So what? Do you really need the weapons you can’t have, or do you merely want them because you think you have a right to them?”

whether one needs them or not is irrelevant. i love that some feel they have the moral authority to decide which rights someone needs or doesn’t.

“Like I said before, these weapons are for hunting humans, not beasts, and there are plenty of guns out there with plenty of stopping power that are legal.”

the cartriges they fire are common hunting cartriges, but the second amend. is not actually about hunting anyway.


“Well duh. Why pass any laws at all if it only affects those people that would obey the law?”


the violent crimes commited are already covered by existing laws. passing laws restricting the implements used in the crimes will not deter criminals from obtaining then, nor make them any harder to obtain. case in point drug prohibition laws. how well are those working? the law should serve some practical purpose.



“You can’t use the military in this country as law enforcement,”


no rocky you can’t. you can use them to protect our borders from armed invaders though. drug smugglers fall into that category now don’t they?


“and you can’t send troops into Mexico without causing the aforementioned incident.”


don’t need to. just need to keep the armed drug trafficers on thier side of the border. that should be simple enough for you to understand. as far as an incident, unless the mexican army is involved in the smuggling there shouldn’t be any incidents. if they are, sorry for thier luck. if you cant see the practicality in the need to secure our borders, i really don’t know what else to say.

Posted by: dbs at June 27, 2011 11:36 AM
Comment #325040

dbs-

and we don’t infringe ont he rights of the majority because of the actions of a few.

If we were to write these laws appropriately, the folks who are honest, law abiding citizens would have no trouble getting guns, or keeping them. Basically we’re talking tougher penalties for straw-buying for crooks. A person buying a gun for their own defense, for sport, would not get caught in that net. Reporting requirements for multiple weapon purchases would only draw attention to the rare individual who can afford such multiple purposes, and only get them in trouble if they’re up to something wrong.

The majority of people, who only buy a weapon for themselves, or buy that weapon for a friend or family member, will not find their rights sacrificed.

“The simple fact is, stronger weapons do more damage. Making them more difficult to attain reduces the probability of mass casualty attacks.”

it only makes them harder to attain for those who are law abidding. criminals will still attain them with little problem.

Just how difficult is it to get a gun? Canada’s got strong gun laws, but they also have plenty of guns. the fact of the matter is, it will make guns harder to get for criminals, meaning they will have to resort to more indirect and expensive options for getting a weapon. If they could, they’d just walk right into a gun shop or a gun show, and they’d get those weapons themselves.

The harder it is to get clean weapons that won’t lead law enforcement to them, the hard it will be for them to economically pursue criminal activity, and get away with it.

You just have to be more imaginative about gun legislation, and less rigid-minded.

“Repeating rifles gave way to semiautomatic and automatic weapons, not to mention machine guns, all designed to kill more people at a time, increasing the firepower of the average soldier.”

machine guns are automatic weapons. like i said earlier automatic fire is the least affective.

By machine guns, I mean, informally, the category of weapons that are heavier, larger, and fire at a higher rate, as opposed to automatic weapons like the M-16 or AK-47, or other standard weapons of that kind.

As for their effectiveness? Yes, automatic fire is least accurate, since the constant recoil of each shot would tend to push the weapon off target. That’s why today’s submachine guns often have a selector for burst fire and semi-automatic fire. If you’re in close quarters, though, or are trying to keep your enemy’s heads down and their asses in one place, it can be very useful. It’s also useful if you want to kill a lot of unarmed people without having to stop to aim at them individually.

“I’ve pretty much conceded here that a basic grade of military weaponry should be available to the average person. But then we get into questions about things like automatic weapons, machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars, etc. Stuff that is part of modern warfare, stuff that in the wrong hands, in the ands of criminals can be harmful.”

anythinig in the wrong hands can be harmful. let’s be honest bad guys are going to get thier hands on weapons regardless of the laws. passing more restrictive laws only affects those who observe them.

Say that to the man who gets caught strawbuying for the cartel, and finds himself looking at a multi-year prison term. Laws are passed to be observed, but they are also passed to punish those who fail to observe them. That is the rule of law.

“but also have to operate out there with the knowledge that many weapons will go over the borders and come back and kill Americans.” this could be stopped by simply putting armed US soldiers , or marines on the border. let’s be honest 20, or 30k battle hardened marines could make quick work of armed drug smugglers. that would be an effective deterent if the US gov’t would actually grow some balls.

First, the Posse Comitatus act bars the government from enforcing the law with the military.

Second, as the Iknadosian case illustrates, many of these smugglers will be transporting one or two guns at a time, and we really only have the jurisdiction to interdict within our territory.

Now, think that out. You’ll have US Military harrassing folks with guns on the Texas border, on the border between the Southwestern States and Mexico. Yeah, your people would really love to have that kind of situation.

“Can you understand my frustration, that folks on the right seem to be more afraid of a non-existent conspiracy” apparently you haven’t lived long enough. the rest of us know better.

So I’ll get more paranoid with age? There’s proof of a problem on the border. There’s no proof that Obama’s going to take your guns, or was ever going to take your guns.

declare war on mexico? what? our police and border patrol are seriously out gunned down there. our citizens along the border are in danger from dangerous smugglers.

Let me be blunt here: the military is a purpose-built extender of lethal force. Not saying that’s a problem, that’s the point of what they are.

But the point would be, don’t deploy them anywhere you’re not willing to get somebody shot. Now you’d insist that only drug dealers, drug smugglers, and people smuggling weapsons would have anything to fear. But they don’t necessarily wear signs, so mistakes will be made, and people will be be shot.

But going further, let me ask a question: how is it that those who fear the government when it comes to regulations that mostly impinge upon corporate America, so easily come to trust it when they suggest unleashing the military, or allowing law enforcement more ability to act with brutality and lethal force, when that presents far more risk to the average American?

The Conservatives seem to have a paralyzing fear of the world beyond their ranks.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2011 12:04 PM
Comment #325041

An American citizen can own any weapon he wants, military or not, IF he has the finances and the permits allowing him to do so. Full auto weapons require a Class III license. And although some states have placed restrictions on certain weapons and magazines, one always has the option to relocate to another state or city.

The Coast Guard protects our border waterways against drug smugglers and the National Guard has and can do the same on land.

You are correct dbs, what weapons we own and the ammunition we use is not relevant. Rich, like most liberals simply wants to slowly carve away at our 2nd amendment rights, while making bogus logical reasons for doing so. There has been an assault on our 2nd amendment rights ever since the early 60’s, and these socialists want to accuse the right of conspiracy theories. Well, I’m sorry, but the right has good reason to suspect that socialists have an ulterior motive for trying to make it almost impossible to exercise our 2nd amendment rights. Don’t just look at the multiple laws that have been passed; take a journey through the past 60 years of liberal proposed bills and you will see the direction liberals want to go. It is too late for the left and only socialists and the liberal talking heads are still pushing more and stricter gun laws. The democrat politicians from rural hunting areas would be committing political suicide to vote for more gun laws. I suggest the enforcement of existing laws; which the left would never do.
This is why we have Holder, a sociaist appointee, refuseing to protect our borders or prosecute those who violate the law. He is doing the bidding of his socialist boss.

Posted by: Mike at June 27, 2011 12:12 PM
Comment #325042

Stephen Daugherty; the purpose of the Canadian gun laws were to control who was able to own a gun, under the pretext of keeping the guns out of the hands of the criminals. And if a law abiding citizen wanted a gun, he had to go through the equivalent of a TSA probing to get the permits and then after he was approved, it would require hundreds of dollars of taxes to buy the permits, and this does not include the fact that the government has a documented list of all Canadian citizens who own guns and what guns they own. This does not even include the high taxes placed on ammunition.

At one time or another, all of these things have been proposed by socialist politicians in America.

Posse Comitatus Act: The Coast guard is exempt under the DHSA and the Army and USMC are prohibited under the DOD rules and not the PC Act.

There have been times when the PCA was superseded by congressional authority, example: H.R. 5122, also known as the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, and repealed in 2008. So the point is, the government CAN protect our borders with troops, if they so want. Secondly, the use of troops on the border is not a violation of CPA laws against the American citizens; it is sending troops to protect our borders from foreign invaders

Posted by: Mike at June 27, 2011 12:41 PM
Comment #325043

dbs,

“the cartriges they fire are common hunting cartriges…”

So you already can own a weapon that can use the same ammo.

“…but the second amend. is not actually about hunting anyway.”

You seem to have this testosterone driven fantasy that we are on the verge of armed insurrection.
Sorry pal, I couldn’t disagree with the idea that this is what the country needs more strenuously, and the result would be chaos.

“you can use them to protect our borders from armed invaders though. drug smugglers fall into that category now don’t they?”

Seems to me that drug smuggling is a criminal offence, and as such falls under the purview of law enforcement, not military, or Homeland security.
So we are back to asking the military to enforce our laws, something they aren’t allowed to do.
As an example of law enforcement silliness, Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff, the county I live in, seems more interested in arresting illegals for trespassing, which under Arizona law he can do, than arresting people for drug possession, which BTW is also a part of drug smuggling.
At the same time, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is whining about the drug trafficking, but doing squat to enforce the laws against it.

“if you cant see the practicality in the need to secure our borders, i really don’t know what else to say.”

Yeah, I do see the need to have border security, but using the military to enforce it is just bone stupid.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 27, 2011 12:45 PM
Comment #325044

dbs,

Let me put this another way;

I own a 45/70 lever action saddle gun. At 100 yards I can put a 3/4 inch hole through “Diamond plate” steel. If I hit a human in the shoulder at the same distance the impact would take of their arm.

Why on earth would anyone need more than that?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 27, 2011 1:11 PM
Comment #325045

This argument has absolutely nothing to do with common sense or rationality. It is just another in the archives of thick-headed, backward mentality and pouty determination to perpetuate the bully population. You say we don’t have any right to challenge how quickly, how accurately, how often you can inflict mortality or mutilation on another human being, then stand with pride admiring your handiwork and grunting with your fellow pack members at your prowess. Then, in the same breath you try to tell me that I or my sister, or neighbor can’t vacuate from our body, a near lifeless, or grotesquely deformed, or incurably inflicted less-than-life form.
You’ve got balls…..and not a brain cell among you.

Posted by: jane doe at June 27, 2011 2:21 PM
Comment #325046

rocky


“You seem to have this testosterone driven fantasy that we are on the verge of armed insurrection.
Sorry pal, I couldn’t disagree with the idea that this is what the country needs more strenuously, and the result would be chaos.”


stating that the 2nd amend. was intended to give the citizens the ability to keep thier gov’t in check is a testosterone induced fantasy? where did i suggest we were on the verge of an armed insurrection? really? take a deep breath.


“Seems to me that drug smuggling is a criminal offence, and as such falls under the purview of law enforcement, not military, or Homeland security.”


that might be the case if they were smuggling them in from another state. armed paramilitary gunmen are smuggling them in from a foreign country. something needs to be done rocky, and what we are doing now isn’t working. i don’t have a problem using the military to deal with these thugs. the only thing they respect is overwhelming violent force, something our military can provide to them quite efficiently.


“As an example of law enforcement silliness, Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff, the county I live in, seems more interested in arresting illegals for trespassing, which under Arizona law he can do,”


good…..we need more like him. at least somebody is doing something about it. the federal gov’t won’t seem to enforce our imigration laws someone needs to.


“than arresting people for drug possession, which BTW is also a part of drug smuggling.”


let’s see…..you want people arrested for possession, but won’t use the force needed to deep six these armed a$$holes smuggling them in. that makes a lot of sense.


“Yeah, I do see the need to have border security, but using the military to enforce it is just bone stupid.”


how so? they are the best trained and equiped to deal with these turds. if not who are you going to train and equip in sufficient numbers to stop the violence being waged against american law enforcement, and citizens on our border. should we try to reason with them? it seems continuing to do the same thing, which is virtually nothing is what is truely bone stupid.


“Why on earth would anyone need more than that?”


what does it matter? why does someone need a car that will do 200mph? why does someone need a 35,000 sq. ft. house? who cares so long as they respect the law and don’t endanger others.


Posted by: dbs at June 27, 2011 3:35 PM
Comment #325047

sandra


“This argument has absolutely nothing to do with common sense or rationality.”

thanks for the warning.


“It is just another in the archives of thick-headed, backward mentality and pouty determination to perpetuate the bully population. You say we don’t have any right to challenge how quickly, how accurately, how often you can inflict mortality or mutilation on another human being, then stand with pride admiring your handiwork and grunting with your fellow pack members at your prowess. Then, in the same breath you try to tell me that I or my sister, or neighbor can’t vacuate from our body, a near lifeless, or grotesquely deformed, or incurably inflicted less-than-life form.
You’ve got balls…..and not a brain cell among you.”


from the tone of this rant it would seem i’m not the one lacking functioning brain cells in adequate numbers. oh…and BTW where did i suggest abortion should be illegal?

Posted by: dbs at June 27, 2011 3:42 PM
Comment #325048

dbs,

“what does it matter? why does someone need a car that will do 200mph? why does someone need a 35,000 sq. ft. house? who cares so long as they respect the law and don’t endanger others.”

Unlike Stephen or even perhaps you, I have little faith in people that do things simply because they can, and I personally believe that is the lamest excuse to do something ever.

Just as an example, here in Arizona it is legal to drive a semi-truck in the fast lane of the freeway. That there are three or four other lanes to the right doesn’t matter, slower traffic to the right doesn’t apply here.
Truck drivers do it because they can.

How can I have faith in the decisions my fellow Americans make when, for instance, there are so many Erectile enhancement supplements for sale here?
It’s painfully obvious to me that more than a few Americans aren’t thinking about what’s truly important. There wouldn’t be a glut of such things if somebody wasn’t buying them.

Just another example of people doing things simply because they can.

“how so? they are the best trained and equiped to deal with these turds.”

Law enforcement are the best trained to deal with law enforcement matters, including drug smuggling. The military aren’t.
My point about Arpaio is that he is grandstanding on a touchy/feely issue and seemingly ignoring the truly heinous crime taking place in his jurisdiction.

And it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 27, 2011 4:59 PM
Comment #325049

rocky

while i can understand people are going to do things you don’t like, the majority of them like the truck in the left lane are an annoyance, and nothing more. the fact you have little faith in your fellow human beings is still no valid reason to curtail thier rights, or freedoms. someones rights should only be taken away when they misuse them.


“Law enforcement are the best trained to deal with law enforcement matters, including drug smuggling. The military aren’t.”


they may not be the answer when it comes to the legal aspect, but when it comes to dealing with the armed paramilitary operations involved in the smuggling IMO they are well suited. if not, what is your solution? we are miserably outgunned, and US gun control isn’t the problem. who would you train and arm in adequate numbers to fight them?

Posted by: dbs at June 27, 2011 5:24 PM
Comment #325050

If the feds were doing their job then Arpaio wouldn’t have to be grandstanding. Could it be that the truly henious crimes are being committed by the very ones he is grandstanding about? Rocky

Posted by: KAP at June 27, 2011 5:25 PM
Comment #325051

KAP,

“Could it be that the truly henious crimes are being committed by the very ones he is grandstanding about? Rocky”

Really?

How many lives have been ruined by someone trying to feed their family?


dbs,

“”we are miserably outgunned, and US gun control isn’t the problem.”

Along with their side arms the Border Patrol uses a Remington 870 with a 14” barrel, a switchable M4 carbine and the H&K UMP 40 caliber.
The problem isn’t the weaponry, the problem is the vast open spaces on the border.

I would like to see your sources on the drug cartels “invasion”, I can’t find any facts that support your claims.

According to an investigation published a year ago by the Arizona Republic reported that crime rates in border towns have been flat for the last decade.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 27, 2011 6:11 PM
Comment #325052

rocky


“Along with their side arms the Border Patrol uses a Remington 870 with a 14” barrel, a switchable M4 carbine and the H&K UMP 40 caliber.”


great, then all we need to do is greatly increase thier numbers, and actually allow them to use those weapons. i’de like to actually see an article that talks about the border patrol prevailing in fire fight with drug runners.


“The problem isn’t the weaponry, the problem is the vast open spaces on the border.”


the problem is our gov’ts lack of intestinal fortitude in dealing with the problem on or southern border. of course if you don’t believe there’s a problem with our southern border there’s not much point in continuing this discussion.

Posted by: dbs at June 27, 2011 6:36 PM
Comment #325055

dbs,

“of course if you don’t believe there’s a problem with our southern border there’s not much point in continuing this discussion.”

All I care about is truth not a bunch of hyperbolic bulls**t. When I find facts I share them. All I asked for was that you do the same.

Of course you are aware that the “Phoenix is the kidnapping capital” was baloney, right?

There is so much crap out there that it requires hip-waders to make your way through it. The illegal immigration “invasion” has slowed to a trickle, not because of interdiction or Arpaio, but because there are no jobs to be had.

There has been drug smuggling across the Arizona border with Mexico, and Mexican Drug cartel activity in the US for decades. This is a fact. If you are worried about an invasion it tool place long ago, not just yesterday.

The Mexican border with the US is a sieve, and it is a sieve because of the vast empty spaces in the area. We could throw 100’s of billions of dollars at the problem and barely make a dent.

Is this what you want?

History shows that walls and fences really don’t do a very good job of stopping people that want to get through.

Just as examples; Russia, China, and Israel all built walls. Did any of them really work?
I suppose the “Berlin” wall worked the best, but the guards had orders to shoot to kill.

Is that what you want?

Look, I am all for increasing security along the border, but I also want a logical plan instead of just throwing money away.
Putting the military on the border is a useless idea unless we put 100’s of thousands of troops there with the logistical support to do the job right, and include air support as well.

Otherwise we’re just pissing in the wind.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 27, 2011 7:18 PM
Comment #325061

Mike-
Oh, so we’re not allowed to take into account the power of a weapon when restricting its sales or it’s permitting?

Do me a favor here and cut the conspiracy theory out. The issue since the early sixties was the rise in crime, particularly gun crime. Folks had to deal with violence on the streets all the time, murder rates soaring… That’s your reason gun control was such a big deal. Violence, since then, has gone down, the violent crime rate gone down.

Additionally, police are no longer so outgunned. But really, when it comes down to it, it doesn’t leave people feeling so raw anymore. There isn’t such a push for it anymore on the left.

Instead, here, Republicans call for gun control. What? You don’t believe me? Well, what are they doing? They’re saying keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals. They’re attacking law enforcement for having failed to implement current gun control laws well enough. Ah, but then the question is, even if they did, would it have much effect?

But you’re not going to answer that question. What you’re going to do is rant and rave about socialists that don’t exist instead.

As for Canadian gun laws, they don’t prevent Canadians from having a ****load of guns per capita. Seems like gun control there hasn’t prevented millions of Canadians from keeping and bearing arms. It’s only prevented thousands of Canadians a year from being killed with those guns.

As for Posse Comitatus, I expected the Coast Guard was exempt, but they’re not an expeditionary force, are they? Even if the Marines are not covered by Posse Comitatus, they are covered, and with good reason: militaries exist to destroy their enemy. Any place you put military units is a place where you’d better be comfortable with the violence that takes.

Or the foreign country whose border you’re sharing. You can talk about invaders but what these really are are criminals Calling them invaders is just rhetorical flourish, it’s not an accurate description. They’re smugglers, and the armed enforcers of those smugglers.

The trouble with the way conservatives (note I’m not going to call you fascists or barbarians, or any of that silliness) approach issues nowadays is that it’s not a consistent political philosophy that drives them, but rather a body of rhetoric that is always being ratcheted up. Your mouths are writing checks your body politic can’t cash. You berate us for being bad with deficits, but how did we get this one? Not by a Democratic President, or even a Democratic Congress. Let’s be blunt: if you call us socialists, then Republicans were and still are socialists themselves, because they did everything we were accused of and more. And most importantly, they did it for real.

We passed a trillion dollar healthcare plan. Did you see an accompanying increase in the deficit? No, because we offset it. TARP’s been paid back for the most part. The Car Companies we bailed out, then restructured, have returned to profitablility, instead of collapsing and taking millions of jobs with it.

The real problem here is that Republicans nowadays are little different in policy terms from what they accuse us of being. Worse yet, they’re not honest with themselves or others about this, and in fact run away from it in practically everything they do and say. They were willing to bailout companies ad-infinitum, until it became politically unpopular, and then, out of reaction, they tried a ridiculous set of political stunts to prove they weren’t socialists, and ended up letting an economic disaster happen to prove their bonafides. And that didn’t even work.

Republicans stimulated the economy time and time again. Ah, but the debt that generated was fine because it came from tax cuts! Except that stimulus didn’t work. The economic recovery never really happened, and that strategy never produced jobs in any real numbers. The Bush decade was the worst for job creation, even by Jimmy Carter standards, since WWII.

But Obama creates a stimulus, or runs a higher deficit, and suddenly Republicans are shocked to find that we’re broke? Never mind we can still pay back debts, though they’re painfully high. And now, they’re willing to risk the financial health and the full faith and credit of this country, once again to prove their political bonafides by forcing unpopular and badly thought out policy on the country.

Rant about socialists all you want. At this rate, Republicans are going to destroy the economy before anybody else ever gets the chance. And then, do you know who they’re going to blame? Everybody else.

I’m so sick of it. America deserves better. America deserves people who are in touch with reality, who can lay their ideological preferences aside, and work in the real world.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2011 8:40 AM
Comment #325072

Stephen said, whith a straight face:

“America deserves people who are in touch with reality, who can lay their ideological preferences aside, and work in the real world.”

If you are refering to yourself, then all I can say is hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 28, 2011 7:06 PM
Comment #325127

Conservativethinker-
Don’t laugh then. I’m referring to anybody who keeps in touch. The question is, should you be laughing at yourself? Sit down and research some of these points beyond the confines of your partisan media and institutions. Find out what the people without a particular axe to grind think on a subject.

What’s right is right, regardless of whether you or I get it. We can only hope we’re on the right track with things, because inevitably, if we aren’t, we’re in trouble.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2011 10:45 AM
Comment #330905

5815 UGG Classic Tall Boots
jordan sneakers
Ever girl has at least one pair of 5815 UGG Classic Tall Boots in her shoescase.boots have won the popularity mainly

Posted by: tgyh at October 22, 2011 4:24 AM
Post a comment