Politics on YouTube

[RealCool Daddio]

I dunno, I don't ascribe the founding fathers as omnipotent. Nor do I think there is anyway for them to have conceived of a firearm that could hit a target at almost a mile. Nor do I think they had the foresight to see Teflon coated bullets. Nor do I think they had insight into rounds that would mushroom out and break into hundreds of pieces that gelatinized the flesh of the victim. Nor do I think they had any idea that certain weapons would be able to fire 500 rounds a second... and those can be owned by certain licensed gun enthusiasts. The bullets, by anyone with the cash to buy them.
To the strawman thing... do you ever visit gun forums? Because I have read arguments as to why someone should be able to own hand held rocket launchers and bazookas.

You yourself are unsure of where to draw the line by saying "maybe not machine guns".

And this, Onan, is why you are one of my favorite coast gabbers.  You have uncommon amounts of common sense.

[Sardondi]

I dunno, I don't ascribe the founding fathers as omnipotent. Nor do I think there is anyway for them to have conceived of a firearm that could hit a target at almost a mile. Nor do I think they had the foresight to see Teflon coated bullets. Nor do I think they had insight into rounds that would mushroom out and break into hundreds of pieces that gelatinized the flesh of the victim. Nor do I think they had any idea that certain weapons would be able to fire 500 rounds a second... and those can be owned by certain licensed gun enthusiasts. The bullets, by anyone with the cash to buy them.
To the strawman thing... do you ever visit gun forums? Because I have read arguments as to why someone should be able to own hand held rocket launchers and bazookas. You yourself are unsure of where to draw the line by saying "maybe not machine guns".

Discarding silliness for a moment, while neither do I ascribe to the FFs' omnipotence, I do ascribe, based on the evidence of their contemporary writings, enough sense that 1) they were writing for the ages, and, 2) that they laid down principles, not a set of fact-bound rules. They were excellent minds. No nation has ever produced better. I think that as a group they are the equal of any similar such conglomeration of minds throughout the ages.

And the point of the amendment we're talking about is not that they were ensuring the right of citizens of a young nation to have the right to the finest flintlock long rifle available. Rather they were establishing the principle that the citizens of the new nation should have the means to defend themselves against their government. The very principle which they'd spent seven years demonstrating.

[RealCool Daddio]

Discarding silliness for a moment, while neither do I ascribe to the FFs' omnipotence, I do ascribe, based on the evidence of their contemporary writings, enough sense that 1) they were writing for the ages, and, 2) that they laid down principles, not a set of fact-bound rules. They were excellent minds. No nation has ever produced better. I think that as a group they are the equal of any similar such conglomeration of minds throughout the ages.

And the point of the amendment we're talking about is not that they were ensuring the right of citizens of a young nation to have the right to the finest flintlock long rifle available. Rather they were establishing the principle that the citizens of the new nation should have the means to defend themselves against their government. The very principle which they'd spent seven years demonstrating.

Your comments on the FF certainly resonate with - it captures nicely why I moved my family here from Canada.  However, and this might be splitting hairs, I think that their intent spoke more to being armed against threats to liberty, as opposed to defense from fellow citizens.  I don't for a minute believe that the FF intended to enable neighbors slaughtering neighbors.

[onan]

Discarding silliness for a moment, while neither do I ascribe to the FFs' omnipotence, I do ascribe, based on the evidence of their contemporary writings, enough sense that 1) they were writing for the ages, and, 2) that they laid down principles, not a set of fact-bound rules. They were excellent minds. No nation has ever produced better. I think that as a group they are the equal of any similar such conglomeration of minds throughout the ages.

And the point of the amendment we're talking about is not that they were ensuring the right of citizens of a young nation to have the right to the finest flintlock long rifle available. Rather they were establishing the principle that the citizens of the new nation should have the means to defend themselves against their government. The very principle which they'd spent seven years demonstrating.

I don't think it is as easy as an either/or discussion. Yes they were establishing a set of principles and no one is saying the constitution isn't magnificent. But to suggest the document is beyond reproach when other amendments have been redressed is puzzling to me.
If you look over my posts on firearms, I think it is apparent I support gun ownership, both long and hand. But I am also cognizant of the concerns of others. There is no legitimate separation between gun deaths and the number of guns available. There are also many other contributing factors to the gun violence. Where my problem lies is in the desire to ignore guns as part of the equation.
But this discussion started about what is a legitimate argument about gun laws. And my point is nothing more than a very honest discussion needs to take place.

[Sardondi]

And they can have my suitcase nuke when they pry my cold, dead fingers from it.

[onan]

And they can have my suitcase nuke when they pry my cold, dead fingers from it.

"I don't care who ya are... that is funny."
                                                Larry the cable guy

[Pragmier]

Pretty rare, a person from congress that talks openly about following the constitution:

...

Feinstein right off the bat has to rely on ad misericordiam arguments, and then does not answer the question.

Cruz was being condescending by lecturing and, I believe, wrong on the facts as they pertain to the potential bill under discussion. From
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, 2008: 

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

[PB the Deplorable]

Cruz was being condescending by lecturing and, I believe, wrong on the facts as they pertain to the potential bill under discussion.

Well, at least that's better than the way the Libs oftern treat Conservatives - with smears and charges of racism.

From
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, 2008:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Keep in mind the Constitution is the authority, not the court - any Court.  Plenty of cases have been decided improperly, many times preceident has been established incorrectly. 

Of course the Constitutional rights are not unlimited, but there has to be a compelling- and lawful - reason why any one of them is limited - not just because a majority of judges on a panel want to do so.  Most of the Rights either are intentionally, well, not vague, but indistinct.  Purposefully leaving room for interpretation in different times (if they are clearly no longer useful, there is the Amendment process).  What falls under 'well regulated'?  What is or is not 'arms'.  Those can be debated honestly.

As noted above, 'arms' didn't mean warships or cannons then, or nuclear weapons and heavy artillery now.  I think 'arms' can mean what Heller says in the quote - guns in common use.

Well regulated - yes, keep them away from dangerous people.  As far as I'm concerned violent criminals, once conicted, have forfeited their rights to anything.  If theyare lucky enough to ever be released, they don't get to have a gun.

As far as something like upholding concealed weapons prohibitions, I think thhe court overstepped their authority and inserting their personal agenda.  I also don't think prohibitions of having guns near certain places like government buildings is a correct finding - I think private property owners have the right to prohibit guns on their property or place of business, but not the government.

Weapon sales should be regulated, but not unnecessarily impeded.  Going through a training class can legtimately be required.  Interstate commerce of guns can be scrutinized.

This can all be debated.  Where the problem is is with the politicians and others that are hell bent on disarming us.  They've lost elections trying to do it too fast, so they are doing it in slo-motion:  reducing the size of clips, outlawing certain popular models, trying to legislate a hodge-podge of background checks , keeping the records, even in one case giving thsose records to a local paper to publish the names and adresses of gun owners. 

As with Fabian Socialists - slowly and incrementally advancing Socialism, the Left has learned that a full court press in gun banning only loses elections.  So they are doing it slowly, incrementally, dishonestly.  That's the problem.

[onan]

Well regulated - yes, keep them away from dangerous people.  As far as I'm concerned violent criminals, once conicted, have forfeited their rights to anything.  If theyare lucky enough to ever be released, they don't get to have a gun.

I had thought that well regulated meant well supplied. I cannot find that now that I try to support my post. Well regulated does imply some level of supply however. Well regulated militia when the constitution was being written included males. Males capable of together for common defense.

[PB the Deplorable]

I dunno, I don't ascribe the founding fathers as omnipotent....

Nor did they themselves.  They put in the Amendment process, a Constitutional Convention, or if things just got to a certain point - an arguement for a second revolution.  They wrote the Amendments intentionally a little vague as to be able to apply them to unforseen issues and events, and for different future times.  I'd say the first 10 Amendments have held up pretty well - if only we had not deviated from them as much as we already have.  In fact the rest of the Amendments are a pretty mixed bag in comparison.

What they didn't do was leave what some are calling a 'Living Document' - where if enough politicians, with the help of the Media, in a temporary, emotional wave of populism, can ignore the Framers intent and ignore the plain meaning of the words to change a clause  to be something entirely different.

Not omnipotent.  But very very wise, very thoughtful, looking out for the future of the Republic instead of themselves or their Party.  Can anyone point to one person in the current government that fits that description now?  In our lifetime?  It sure wouldn't be Diane Feinstein.

... Nor do I think there is anyway for them to have conceived of a firearm that could hit a target at almost a mile. Nor do I think they had the foresight to see Teflon coated bullets. Nor do I think they had insight into rounds that would mushroom out and break into hundreds of pieces that gelatinized the flesh of the victim. Nor do I think they had any idea that certain weapons would be able to fire 500 rounds a second... and those can be owned by certain licensed gun enthusiasts. The bullets, by anyone with the cash to buy them.

To the strawman thing... do you ever visit gun forums? Because I have read arguments as to why someone should be able to own hand held rocket launchers and bazookas.

You yourself are unsure of where to draw the line by saying "maybe not machine guns".

I'm not for all those things either.  No one needs a sniper rifle.  Or grenade launchers.  But if I want a large clip I should be able to have one.  People might need more than 7 or 10 bullets to defend a home or business from an unknown numger of assailants at night.  If I shoot someone, I need them to stay down, not a toy bullet.

Gun forums - no, never.  Probably a lot of nuts and extremeists, or at least feel free to be on-line?  Lots of foolish testosterone?

[PB the Deplorable]

... And my point is nothing more than a very honest discussion needs to take place.

That very honest discussion should start with our inner cities - where nearly all the gun crime is, and how they got to be the way they are - who's been in charge all these years, what political philosophy and which policies have been in place.  The next stop would be to examine the schools over the past 50 years - again who's been in change and what they've done.

Then we can look at our southern border areas where most of the rest of gun crime occurs.  Why is the border still wide open to anyone?

Moving on, we should recall the 60s radical groups, the Black Panthers, Obama's BFFs Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn, many others.  They knew then and the Left knows now why private gun ownership is important when it comes to the citizenry vs a government.  Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hitler, they all knew - and outlawed guns when they took power.

Having them is an incentive for the govt to not get overly tyranical.  To the people that say we couldn't take on tanks and planes with small arms - I say that isn't how it's done.  But it's a start - before military defections and any outside help arrives.  Keeping our guns likely ensures we won't need that second revolution, losing them ensures we will.

[onan]

PB, on several of your points I am right there with ya.


Here is an interesting and at the same time boring read. I think you will find some strong support for some or your thoughts.


http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

[Yorkshire pud]

They knew then and the Left knows now why private gun ownership is important when it comes to the citizenry vs a government.  Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hitler, they all knew - and outlawed guns when they took power.

I guess it's hardly worth pointing out that it was public opinion in the UK that resulted in the outlawing of handguns? It would likely have included shotguns and rifles, but farmers and pest controllers (and the hunting lobby) had a legitimate reason for having such weapons..The compromise is that all legitimate gun owners are registered, and licensed to have firearms that must be kept in a locked cabinet, and restrictions on the amount of rounds/cartridges held. Incidentally, the government at the time were the Conservatives.

Having them is an incentive for the govt to not get overly tyranical.

Must be wearing to live in perpetual fear of tyranny; and it's the land of the free? Interesting. I have several friends in the US in several states, only one has bought into the imminent collapse of society and is stocking up on bottled water and pasta...The rest don't believe there is a correlation between guns owned by the general population stopping tyranny; but then they don't think you're seeing the imminent collapse of society either. Was a programme on the BBC the other night about the gun lobby V the anti gun lobby...scary shit..Obese, out of shape primary school teachers on a range with side arms...I doubt any would have been quick enough, let alone fire accurately in a real world firefight. That wasn't teh really scary thing: The really scary thing was secret filming of a gun fair, and the undercover reporter was approached and offered for sale a semi automatic rifle..no checks nothing..But the REALLY scary thing was the sad situation that mentally ill people can easily get weapons with absolutely no psychological checks..One mother with a mentally ill son is terrified he could get armed and take her, the family and anyone else out. I doubt she's on her own.

To the people that say we couldn't take on tanks and planes with small arms - I say that isn't how it's done.  But it's a start - before military defections and any outside help arrives.  Keeping our guns likely ensures we won't need that second revolution, losing them ensures we will.

Hasn't happened in any country where weapons have restrictions..I can point you to several civil wars/ conflicts where they're not.. Germany, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, all have weapon restrictions.  The last revolution in all of those was the Spanish Civil war. On that occasion the fascists were replaced with another fascist. World War two evened that particular playing field, Spain being neutral.  Or are you implying the US really doesn't get along particularly well with itself?

[slipstream]

Creeping EU Totalitarianism

[Falkie2013]

I guess it's hardly worth pointing out that it was public opinion in the UK that resulted in the outlawing of handguns? It would likely have included shotguns and rifles, but farmers and pest controllers (and the hunting lobby) had a legitimate reason for having such weapons..The compromise is that all legitimate gun owners are registered, and licensed to have firearms that must be kept in a locked cabinet, and restrictions on the amount of rounds/cartridges held. Incidentally, the government at the time were the Conservatives.


Must be wearing to live in perpetual fear of tyranny; and it's the land of the free? Interesting. I have several friends in the US in several states, only one has bought into the imminent collapse of society and is stocking up on bottled water and pasta...The rest don't believe there is a correlation between guns owned by the general population stopping tyranny; but then they don't think you're seeing the imminent collapse of society either. Was a programme on the BBC the other night about the gun lobby V the anti gun lobby...scary shit..Obese, out of shape primary school teachers on a range with side arms...I doubt any would have been quick enough, let alone fire accurately in a real world firefight. That wasn't teh really scary thing: The really scary thing was secret filming of a gun fair, and the undercover reporter was approached and offered for sale a semi automatic rifle..no checks nothing..But the REALLY scary thing was the sad situation that mentally ill people can easily get weapons with absolutely no psychological checks..One mother with a mentally ill son is terrified he could get armed and take her, the family and anyone else out. I doubt she's on her own.



Hasn't happened in any country where weapons have restrictions..I can point you to several civil wars/ conflicts where they're not.. Germany, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, all have weapon restrictions.  The last revolution in all of those was the Spanish Civil war. On that occasion the fascists were replaced with another fascist. World War two evened that particular playing field, Spain being neutral.  Or are you implying the US really doesn't get along particularly well with itself?

But we ARE in a perpetual state of tyranny. From the occupant of the White House to a crazed Senator from Kalifornia who WOULD ban all guns if she could ( despite the fact the she has a carry permit and carries a handgun in her purse ) to continual nanny statism telling us all what to eat, drink, how much salt is in our food, when and when not we can burn a fire in our fireplaces, when we cannot smoke a pipe, cigar or cigarette in our own homes, seat belt and other laws that are ostensibly for safety but which do nothing but generate revenue for the counties and the courts, a Federal and state government(s ) that restrict long standing water rights ( as is happening all over the West ), a Federal government that is killing the pets of people that are on private property, the list is seemingly endless and the percentage of those who are not low information voters are fed up and the pot is boiling and the see saw of tolerance is reaching the tipping point.

It won't take much for people to say enough and go from peaceful protest to going to their state, Federal and local city halls and drag the legislators and public officials out and hang them in the town square. People are being taxed and regulated past their limits and the time will come.

[Falkie2013]

And this, Onan, is why you are one of my favorite coast gabbers.  You have uncommon amounts of common sense.

What you don't see is that the Founding Fathers were not talking about changes in weapons technology. They were talking about the ability of the PEOPLE to be able to rise against government tyranny and in their minds, a weaponless people were helpless against a government that could and did use their armies as an instrument of suppression and in violation of the government's own laws, as the British did on multiple occasions.

It is forgotten today that when the Americans rose up against the armies of King George they were still subjects of the crown but the crown had gone too far and they had to cross the line and revolt or forever abrogate their right to be free men not subject to the whims of whomever was in power on an island thousands of miles away.

There were laws that Englishmen had fought for, had made Kings sign to protect their rights. Those laws were thrown out or ignored by their king, much like the occupant of the White House does today by ignoring the wishes of Congress, the Constitution and the will of the majority of the people on so many issues.


www.examiner.com/article/are-executive-order-s-on-gun-control-constitutional

[PB the Deplorable]

I guess it's hardly worth pointing out that it was public opinion in the UK that resulted in the outlawing of handguns? It would likely have included shotguns and rifles, but farmers and pest controllers (and the hunting lobby) had a legitimate reason for having such weapons..The compromise is that all legitimate gun owners are registered, and licensed to have firearms that must be kept in a locked cabinet, and restrictions on the amount of rounds/cartridges held. Incidentally, the government at the time were the Conservatives...

The UK and anyone else can do as they wish, it's your country.   But when you say legitimate, I don't get the feeling you are including peoples right to self defense.  I don't think your 'Conservatives' are the same as our 'Conservatives' - I remember when Big Media here used to call the members of the old Soviet Politbureau 'Conservatives', just to confuse voters on behalf of the Ds and fog things up a bit.

Anyway, it was Ronald Reagan that signed a Republican bill when he was governor of California that made it illegal to openly carry loaded firearms.  It was the 60s and they were concerned about the Panthers and others that were doing just that.

... Must be wearing to live in perpetual fear of tyranny; and it's the land of the free? Interesting. I have several friends in the US in several states, only one has bought into the imminent collapse of society and is stocking up on bottled water and pasta...The rest don't believe there is a correlation between guns owned by the general population stopping tyranny; but then they don't think you're seeing the imminent collapse of society either...

It's called being ever vigilent, the price of Liberty - being aware is not the same as perpetual fear.  Looking at where we are today, we've been lazy and not vigilent enough, while our rights and society in general have eroded.

People are free to think what they like.  I don't think we are in iminent danger either, but unless we either repeal the laws of economics or get this spending mess fixed now, this deficit spending (and printing money to redeem some debt) is going to cause massive inflation for items such as food and energy and every day products, deflation for items such as stocks, bonds, and real estate, massively high interest rates and unemployment, very negative economic growth, and a broke government that can't meet it's obligations - it's payroll, pensions, military, social security, medicare, obamacare, all the other handouts, interest on the debt.  Gone.

And the people responsible will blame 'the rich'. 

Sort of like now only much much worse.  Collapse of society?  It is really hard to predict how that will play out, just know it's probably coming.

... Hasn't happened in any country where weapons have restrictions..I can point you to several civil wars/ conflicts where they're not.. Germany, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, all have weapon restrictions....  Or are you implying the US really doesn't get along particularly well with itself?

Those populations were relatively homogeneous - most everyone on thesame page.  They were war weary.  They didn't have the inner city rot with the violence and crime we have here.  All this goes away now that they are importing huge numbers of poor Muslims, though. 

Get along with ourselves?  Half of us want to keep pushing for more Socialism, half of us are saying the experiment needs to be ended.  Half (whether they realize it or not) are following the people that hate our form of government and our economic system and are trying to push us towards a one world government with them at the top, half are insisting we stop.  I don't think you have these 2 sides in Western Europe, the Socialists have won it.

[onan]

What you don't see is that the Founding Fathers were not talking about changes in weapons technology. They were talking about the ability of the PEOPLE to be able to rise against government tyranny and in their minds, a weaponless people were helpless against a government that could and did use their armies as an instrument of suppression and in violation of the government's own laws, as the British did on multiple occasions.

It is forgotten today that when the Americans rose up against the armies of King George they were still subjects of the crown but the crown had gone too far and they had to cross the line and revolt or forever abrogate their right to be free men not subject to the whims of whomever was in power on an island thousands of miles away.

There were laws that Englishmen had fought for, had made Kings sign to protect their rights. Those laws were thrown out or ignored by their king, much like the occupant of the White House does today by ignoring the wishes of Congress, the Constitution and the will of the majority of the people on so many issues.


www.examiner.com/article/are-executive-order-s-on-gun-control-constitutional

There is no similarity of the 1700 military to the military of today. To even consider that as some form of equivalency can only be made by someone that has never been in the military. Has no understanding of a military mindset and has never seen any form of modern day warfare.
I really do not want to get off on a tangent here. But it is almost insane to believe that todays US citizens have any kind of chance in any kind of military combat. The only way to confront that kind of tyranny would be what happened in Tiananmen Square.
The day of hiding behind a tree and holding off a platoon of enemy combatants is gone, except in the movies.

[Why are you yelling?]

There is no similarity of the 1700 military to the military of today. To even consider that as some form of equivalency can only be made by someone that has never been in the military. Has no understanding of a military mindset and has never seen any form of modern day warfare.
I really do not want to get off on a tangent here. But it is almost insane to believe that todays US citizens have any kind of chance in any kind of military combat. The only way to confront that kind of tyranny would be what happened in Tiananmen Square.
The day of hiding behind a tree and holding off a platoon of enemy combatants is gone, except in the movies.

Yeah no way a group of underfunded, out gunned, and untrained men could hold off the US military.


Signed,


The Taliban and Iraqi Insurgents with their 20 year old AK-47's and crude explosives.






Our average soldier carries a M-16A-4 and basic 782 gear and little to no body armor besides a kevlar helmet and maybe a flak (without sappy plates) if they are lucky.  If you think of the military as a high tech fighting force with access to air support and laser guided bombs at their disposal you are vastly over estimating our strength.  Also take into consideration that even with the bombs and drones our military basically has to fight every conflict with one hand tied behind it's back to appease both the public at home and the international community.


In all honestly I truly believe a group of reasonably armed militia type guys would easily win a conflict with most of our National Guard/Reservists. Hell half of the nasties I ran into @ Iraq didn't even train with real rifles.

[onan]

Yeah no way a group of underfunded, out gunned, and untrained men could hold off the US military.


Signed,


The Taliban and Iraqi Insurgents with their 20 year old AK-47's and crude explosives.






Our average soldier carries a M-16A-4 and basic 782 gear and little to no body armor besides a kevlar helmet and maybe a flak (without sappy plates) if they are lucky.  If you think of the military as a high tech fighting force with access to air support and laser guided bombs at their disposal you are vastly over estimating our strength.  Also take into consideration that even with the bombs and drones our military basically has to fight every conflict with one hand tied behind it's back to appease both the public at home and the international community.


In all honestly I truly believe a group of reasonably armed militia type guys would easily win a conflict with most of our National Guard/Reservists. Hell half of the nasties I ran into @ Iraq didn't even train with real rifles.

Good you run with that.

[Yorkshire pud]

But we ARE in a perpetual state of tyranny. From the occupant of the White House to a crazed Senator from Kalifornia who WOULD ban all guns if she could ( despite the fact the she has a carry permit and carries a handgun in her purse ) to continual nanny statism telling us all what to eat, drink, how much salt is in our food, when and when not we can burn a fire in our fireplaces, when we cannot smoke a pipe, cigar or cigarette in our own homes, seat belt and other laws that are ostensibly for safety but which do nothing but generate revenue for the counties and the courts, a Federal and state government(s ) that restrict long standing water rights ( as is happening all over the West ), a Federal government that is killing the pets of people that are on private property, the list is seemingly endless and the percentage of those who are not low information voters are fed up and the pot is boiling and the see saw of tolerance is reaching the tipping point.

It won't take much for people to say enough and go from peaceful protest to going to their state, Federal and local city halls and drag the legislators and public officials out and hang them in the town square. People are being taxed and regulated past their limits and the time will come.

I see...I guess there's no hope then. 

[Yorkshire pud]

It is forgotten today that when the Americans rose up against the armies of King George they were still subjects of the crown but the crown had gone too far and they had to cross the line and revolt or forever abrogate their right to be free men not subject to the whims of whomever was in power on an island thousands of miles away.

..Not forgetting those same armies protected the US from the French in Canada... Hey we had an empire until the middle of the last century.

[Yorkshire pud]

The UK and anyone else can do as they wish, it's your country.   But when you say legitimate, I don't get the feeling you are including peoples right to self defense.

We have every right to self defence; what we don't have is the widespread and wholesale distribution of firearms. Hence why your death rate is about 12000 from gun murders and ours is about 35-40.

I don't think your 'Conservatives' are the same as our 'Conservatives' - I remember when Big Media here used to call the members of the old Soviet Politbureau 'Conservatives', just to confuse voters on behalf of the Ds and fog things up a bit.

Conservative means abiding to the norm. Nothing radical, just a didactic following of the status quo: 'Conservative' in the sense of the political party of the same name here in the UK, adopts those principles. Well; insofar as it means the principle of kicking the poor in the teeth and balls, and elevating the rich to even higher planes of omnipresence.


If you're confused then it's your lack of understanding, not the definition of the word. It can apply to the US definition of right or left..The Chinese National peoples congress (the largest parliament in the world) are conservative. In that they seldom make radical fundamental changes to how things have been since the social revolution. But as Dylan said 'The times are a changin' and the reality of commerce and economics mean they've had to drag themselves into the outside world..and boy have they learned fast!

Anyway, it was Ronald Reagan that signed a Republican bill when he was governor of California that made it illegal to openly carry loaded firearms.  It was the 60s and they were concerned about the Panthers and others that were doing just that.


It's called being ever vigilent, the price of Liberty - being aware is not the same as perpetual fear.  Looking at where we are today, we've been lazy and not vigilent enough, while our rights and society in general have eroded.

Oh dear me; I honestly don't know how you live like that. If I was scared shitless of the bogey man almost always, I'd have a breakdown. I've said elsewhere, politicians lie, almost all are in it for themselves. It's irrelevant of the flag they fly or the country they fly it in. worrying about it though won't change anything until you have the people working for and on behalf of the people...Oh damn...that's communism.

People are free to think what they like.  I don't think we are in iminent danger either, but unless we either repeal the laws of economics or get this spending mess fixed now, this deficit spending (and printing money to redeem some debt) is going to cause massive inflation for items such as food and energy and every day products, deflation for items such as stocks, bonds, and real estate, massively high interest rates and unemployment, very negative economic growth, and a broke government that can't meet it's obligations - it's payroll, pensions, military, social security, medicare, obamacare, all the other handouts, interest on the debt.  Gone.

And the people responsible will blame 'the rich'. 

Yes, well the rich get blamed because in spite of the bollox about 'we're all in this together, the law of Animal Farm is rampant..some are far more equal than others. The rich who put us in this shit are still very very rich, and getting richer. The poor and the hitherto not so poor are getting worse off. That isn't the fault of any one government, that is the fault of governments collectively over the previous 40-50 years.

Sort of like now only much much worse.  Collapse of society?  It is really hard to predict how that will play out, just know it's probably coming.

 
Those populations were relatively homogeneous - most everyone on thesame page.  They were war weary.  They didn't have the inner city rot with the violence and crime we have here.  All this goes away now that they are importing huge numbers of poor Muslims, though. 

So you think the second world war in Europe prevented widespread civil war? No, I think it's more likely we don't puff our chests out and play macho man, and spout banal and pretentious crap about 'cold dead hands'. We usually leave the fighting stuff to our professional military; that principle in the UK at least has worked for a hundred and fifty years or so. And they're very very good.

Get along with ourselves?  Half of us want to keep pushing for more Socialism, half of us are saying the experiment needs to be ended. 

Define socialism; I will lay money on your definition being wrong. As for the half/half: who says you're right?

Half (whether they realize it or not) are following the people that hate our form of government and our economic system and are trying to push us towards a one world government with them at the top, half are insisting we stop.  I don't think you have these 2 sides in Western Europe, the Socialists have won it.

Hate is a strong word. I think you'll find most of those who resent the US have very good grounds for doing so. They're seen as the school bully throwing his weight around, being obnoxious and arrogant doing it, and have no sense of humility. Your economic system only works because someone else somewhere else is going to pay, either in the medium or long term. If your system was so good why do you enjoy the highest per capita prison population in the world? You think most of the inmates are in there because they're in high flying jobs with private jets and 100 foot yachts? No, me neither.

[Yorkshire pud]

Yeah no way a group of underfunded, out gunned, and untrained men could hold off the US military.


Signed,


The Taliban and Iraqi Insurgents with their 20 year old AK-47's and crude explosives.






Our average soldier carries a M-16A-4 and basic 782 gear and little to no body armor besides a kevlar helmet and maybe a flak (without sappy plates) if they are lucky.  If you think of the military as a high tech fighting force with access to air support and laser guided bombs at their disposal you are vastly over estimating our strength.  Also take into consideration that even with the bombs and drones our military basically has to fight every conflict with one hand tied behind it's back to appease both the public at home and the international community.


In all honestly I truly believe a group of reasonably armed militia type guys would easily win a conflict with most of our National Guard/Reservists. Hell half of the nasties I ran into @ Iraq didn't even train with real rifles.

I haven't been to the middle east, certainly not in the military; but one thing I do know about the Afghans is that they're very very good at fighting on their terms in their environment. The British couldn't overcome them in the 1800's, the Soviets couldn't; but they were fighting against a militia that was being partly trained by the US...And because of that training they use it today with dreadful devastating effect against their former 'allies'. They're good at improvisation..The average American won't walk a hundred yards, they'll drive instead. They have no idea how to live off the land, or build a shelter, let alone make weapons from what they have to hand..So on balance the analogy is irrelevant..


You also have the aspect of will and determination. The Royal Marine ads in the UK say on the strapline "99.9% need not apply"..The reason being is that of those who get past initial selection (before the nine months of basic training), 80% will not get past 6 months. Those who reach the end are considered the very best. I'd suggest that  99.99999999999% of any civilian militia wouldn't get past a couple of days, and putting them up against trained soldiers is a sick joke.

[onan]

I really get annoyed by the "we can out fight the military on our home ground." This shows the insight of a 4 year old.


First off a terrorist attack doesn't fortify support. so the argument of the terrorists blowing up the world trade towers doesn't equate to fighting a sustained "war".


Who the hell is the enemy you will target? Government offices? with civilians inside? what if your girl friend's father's uncle is in the building?

Or do you think you will win a war against our "tyrannical" government just fighting in your back 10 acres.


Idiot.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Conservative means abiding to the norm. Nothing radical, just a didactic following of the status quo: 'Conservative' in the sense of the political party of the same name here in the UK, adopts those principles. Well; insofar as it means the principle of kicking the poor in the teeth and balls, and elevating the rich to even higher planes of omnipresence.


If you're confused then it's your lack of understanding, not the definition of the word. It can apply to the US definition of right or left..The Chinese National peoples congress (the largest parliament in the world) are conservative. In that they seldom make radical fundamental changes to how things have been since the social revolution...

You are an attorney - you know the common dictionary definition of a word can often mean something very different when used in court or or in a legal document.  Same thing with political terms.  'Conservatives' here do not wish to conserve the current mess.  The 'Liberals' are by no means liberal.

You know good and well the Media was trying to associate Reagan and Thatcher with the old Politbureau when they decided to start calling Brezhnev and friends 'Conservatives', the same way they try to associate Conservatives with Nazis.  Even if they can just get a few of the weak-minded to go along, they are that much closer in the next election.

.... Well; insofar as it means the principle of kicking the poor in the teeth and balls, and elevating the rich to even higher planes of omnipresence.


Yes, well the rich get blamed because in spite of the bollox about 'we're all in this together, the law of Animal Farm is rampant..some are far more equal than others. The rich who put us in this shit are still very very rich, and getting richer. The poor and the hitherto not so poor are getting worse off...

The rich kick the poor in the teeth?  Really?  Mostly, they hire them and fund the rest through taxes.  Nearly all the 'rich' in this country earned it.  Statistically only a few of the wealthy inherited it.  You know how people make money, become wealthy?  What generates income and wealth?  By pleasing other people with goods or services.  The more people are pleased with a persons services or products, the more they will buy.  Higher educated people can perform services others can't, and they get paid for it.  Harder working people produce more, and they get paid for it.  Innovative people create things others can't, and they get paid for it.  People that sit around, don't put in the effort to educate themselves, go to work every day, do the extra, create, they don't do that well. 

Why should they.  Why should they get equal, they'd rather play and party, drink and have fun - all the time, not just to take a break here and there, they should get less.  They.  Should.  Get.  Less.  We don't need anyone telling the rest of us we didn't earn it, we didn't build our businesses or careers, or that the lazy should get equal.  That's crap.

This is not a zero sum game where there is only a certain amount of wealth to be distributed.  If I go to work, wealth is created.  If I don't, it is not created that day.  If a farmer grows crops in his field, wealth is created, if it's left fallow, no wealth is created from that.  If someone comes up with a new piece of software people like, wealth is created.  If you killed all the 'rich' and took their money, the poor would not benefit in any way - they still wouldn't be producing much wealth, they'd be far worse off with no one to offer them any job, they'd have no one to produce the goods and services they need and want.

Socialsism can't work because it produces no wealth.  It can only wait until wealth is created, then seize it, and redistribute it.  Then what - the system bumps along and ultimately stagnates until everyone is dirt poor.  Yeah, that's really something great to advocate.  Maybe better to prepare kids for their working years, teach them what they need to do in order to generate wealth of their own and be successful.

The Left is relentless in their destructiveness.  Guess where this plan to have everyone be 'equal' came from.  Any thinking person should be able to figure out that's never going to happen and to focus on that is going to make everyone worse off.

The only people I see getting money they don't earn are corporate fat cats that bssically decide their own salaries, government officials - their own pay and being allowed to grow government for their own benefit - none of which is decided based on how good of a job they do, union leaders, and people that could wotk that are sitting around getting handouts.  Those are the greedy in our society.  That's where the focus should be for do-gooders worried someone is getting something they shouldn't. 

... If I was scared shitless of the bogey man almost always, I'd have a breakdown....

Said the guy who thinks 'the rich' are out to get us

... Hate is a strong word....

Yes it is.  Obama and his friends like Bill Ayres, Rev Wright, Michelle, Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, much of the corrupt Chicago political machine, Van Jones, his Muslim Brotherhood pals, others like the typical Alinskyite, Occupy leaders, all the groups like Code Pink and the rest of the 'peace' demonstrators that are always tearing up our streets, people like Farrakan and Sharpton, and most of the people running our large cities, and frankly, too many of the professors in our universities - hate our form of government and our economic system.  They are mostly on record - not Obama, he's too sly to tell us who he really is, even when he was an Illinois State Senator he mostly voted 'Present' so as not to tip his hand, for him we have to go by who his friends are, who his enemies are, what appointments he makes, and what he says from time to time when he gets away from the tele-prompter...

[Pragmier]

People are being taxed and regulated past their limits and the time will come.

Federal income taxes are at near historical lows.
Here's the tables covering the past 100 years showing top marginal rates of 50-70% for much of our history. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just that the idea that we're currently experiencing tyrannical rule (you said we're in a tyranny and gave taxes as one example) because of taxes needs some perspective. If you have further data to back up the claim, such as specific state and local taxes, i'm all ears.


And by the way, there's plenty of "low information" voters on all sides - they are not restricted to those you disagree with.

[onan]

The rich have also hired thugs to shoot and kill those that want better working conditions. The rich have also ransacked countries to bring you a banana for breakfast. The rich have also sent their profits to other countries to avoid their civic responsibilities. The rich have destroyed ecosystems and have shown little care.


Lots of people work hard and have their retirements stolen from them by the rich.


The game is rigged, and it isn't to the betterment of the less thans.


At some point wealth is no longer about resources and production. As evidenced by the derivative markets. Are there good rich people? Of course, but the bad ones are capable of long lasting harm to an economy and a society. And worshiping them is probably the worst sin of all.

[PB the Deplorable]

The rich have also hired thugs to shoot and kill those that want better working conditions. The rich have also ransacked countries to bring you a banana for breakfast. The rich have also sent their profits to other countries to avoid their civic responsibilities. The rich have destroyed ecosystems and have shown little care.


Lots of people work hard and have their retirements stolen from them by the rich.


The game is rigged, and it isn't to the betterment of the less thans.


At some point wealth is no longer about resources and production. As evidenced by the derivative markets. Are there good rich people? Of course, but the bad ones are capable of long lasting harm to an economy and a society. And worshiping them is probably the worst sin of all.

That is all true.  I was talking about the successful in our country.  I mentioned corporate fat cats as people that didn't earn what they are getting.  People out stealing pensions, Wall Street types ripping us off and unbalancing our financial system should be prosecuted and given long jail terms including life sentences.  The govt has much more power and has abused us even more than that, so the same should apply to some of those people. I wasn't talking about the crooks.

[PB the Deplorable]

Federal income taxes are at near historical lows.
Here's the tables covering the past 100 years showing top marginal rates of 50-70% for much of our history. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just that the idea that we're currently experiencing tyrannical rule (you said we're in a tyranny and gave taxes as one example) because of taxes needs some perspective. If you have further data to back up the claim, such as specific state and local taxes, i'm all ears.

Just looking at all the aspects of our lives the various levels of govt are now involved in, the amount that goes to the public sector in dollar terms as well and a percentage of GNP, total taxes have to be higher.  A combination of Federal income taxes, state income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, taxes on businesses that are passed through to the consumer in the form of higher costs, and all the rest.  They take all that and borrow still more.    This is killing our country.

... And by the way, there's plenty of "low information" voters on all sides - they are not restricted to those you disagree with.

It's very sad how dumbed down we've become