Obama To Unveil Gun Control Reforms In Near Future, 7/7/11

[Trlsmn]

First, most TEA-party activists don't vote on principle. They don't hate socialism and government theft and abuse as a rule.

And you use what to back up this statement?

If they did they would have been just as exercised about socialism, big government, fascism, dubious legislative tactics, deficits and the national debt during George W. Bush's term in office. But they were silent. The greatest increases in national debt since WWII came during the presidencies of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Here's the best chart I've seen illustrating national debt growth. During these decades TEA-parties were non-existent. Silence. They don't oppose Socialism on principle, they oppose the other guys' socialism. That is, they oppose socialism for causes they don't agree with at the moment.

You're argument has no foundation outside of "because it didn't start sooner it isn't relevant"? that is an extremely weak foundation to support your conclusion.

That conclusion shows that you have no understanding of why the Tea party was formed. Under your conclusion the Tea party was only formed to counter the Democrats but in fact the Tea party was formed by people disillusioned with the Republican party.

The rest of your supposition is completely false. Perhaps you should read the party platform before making false statements.

BTW, I am not a Tea party member nor will I be one, so my opinion is unbiased. I have also never been registered a Republican, but I have been a registered Democrat. I am now, and have been registered Independent for 20+ years.

 

[Kevatc]

Ah, the guy that uses "critical thinking" to comment on a topic he never even bothered to read and thus commented on a subject unrelated to the topic of my post returns. How's that "critical thinking" thing working out for ya?

Consider this thought; words, they actually have meaning, they're not just inserted into sentences to be flashy.



............................................

So were you going make a critical thinking non-personal insulting response to what I said or just hide behind your moderator position and throw out insults knowing that if any come back your direction you can always do some of that moderator mall ninja stuff?

 

[Partsproduction]

They don't hate socialism and government theft and abuse as a rule.

Believe me, you really don't know anything about what Tea Party members think about.

 

[Kevatc]

Believe me, you really don't know anything about what Tea Party members think about.

Do they think? Based on what I hear on TV from so called national TP talking heads all I hear is a mantra and an absolutely uncompromising ideology. Kinda makes problem solving difficult when you're dealing with people whose bottom line is "my way or I am picking up my marbles and just going to scream at you."

 

[Trlsmn]

So were you going make a critical thinking non-personal insulting response to what I said or just hide behind your moderator position and throw out insults knowing that if any come back your direction you can always do some of that moderator mall ninja stuff?

Just more denial and deflection, no humility or admission. Check!

I don't moderate criticism of myself, when a person criticizes me I leave it just as I left your inept attempt at criticizing my post, but I did comment it and showed you to not even be on the same subject. So now you make more false assertions, just doubling down where you should have some humility.

I don't abuse my position, that is why I am a mod and you are not. Unfortunately people think a mod has to remain quiet and not express their personal opinion and often have to defend against unfounded accusations such as the one you just stated.

 

[dmancornell]

Wow. Ok, I defended (and still am bound by my oath) the Constitution, which recognizes you have a right to your opinion....I will be polite and won't tell you what I think of it.

I was going to withdraw from this thread since the "warning" issued by Trlsmn earlier, but hey since this is now a Tea Party thread, why the heck not.

Just because you swore an oath to serve the Constitution, doesn't mean your actions actually serve the Constitution. The current thief-in-chief also swore an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution. Any sane person can see he is doing to exact opposite, just like his past half dozen predecessors. In your case (as well as every person in the service), you serve the president and the DOD bureaucracy. You can intepret your oath any way you wish, but when the criminal regime sends you overseas on an unconstitutional war and you go along with it, you're not serving the Constitution, you are acquiescing to its violation.

And yes, you can claim that as a soldier your job is to leave the matters of legality up to the courts and Congress, but let's face it, when has the government ever cared about the Constitution ever since SCOTUS granted Congress unlimited powers during the reign of FDR? Given that level of goverment malfeasance, the individual has to take a stand.

To tie it off, you claim your service defended my right to free speech because you serve the Constitution. That implies a branch of the government (the military) protects natural rights which only a tyrant may suppress. I'm stating the military serves the domestic tyrant. The only case your statement can be true is in the case of a foreign invasion and that has not happened in decades (and ironically enough, the last time it happened was during the reign of the despicable dictator FDR).

By the way, when I said "power lords" in my original post, I meant politicans, not the soldiers themselves. Maybe some soldiers are bloodthirsty killers, but I have personally never met any such soldier. On the other hand, all the politicians I had the displeasure of meeting would sell their own children for more power.

And please, feel free to tell me how you really feel, because I want to hear it.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Don't give the Republican party a free pass. In the end the policies that get passed by both parties shows that neither party do things in the best interest of the country or it's citizens. The main difference between Republicans and Democrats seems to be who they pander to for votes. Once in office they both seem to do the exact same thing if you look past the dog and pony show political theater.

Time to dump all incumbents and all incumbent parties for Constitutional and Libertarian parties.

I have to agree, but you probably won't like why. I voted for both Bushes every time they ran, but lately I may sound like I'm on the Democratic/Liberal side. It's because the Republicans have been so dishonest over the last 20 years and they need to hear a little reality. Their crying alligator tears over possible tax "increases" is just maddening. Since 1970 the top individual and corporate tax rates have fallen to about 30% of what they were. We were told that these tax cuts would produce livable wage jobs, and revitalize our industries and our economy. Where are the jobs, and where did our factories go over the last 40 years? They've all moved to India, China, and Mexico. Tax cuts weren't enough. A fair profit wasn't enough. Paying reasonable wages and providing safe and humane working conditions was too expensive. The Republican mantra should be "What's mine is mine, and what's yours should be mine too." Somehow they've convinced the average American that the only thing standing between him and being a millionaire is the government. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Government regulation is the only thing standing between you and Archer-Daniels-Midland. If ADM and it's friends had their way you'd be riding to work on a bicycle and earning 50 cents an hour, and going home to a mud hut and a bowl of rice for dinner. Corporations do not have ethics, morals, or hearts. There's no such thing as "enough" profit, and they don't care who gets trampled.

 

[Kevatc]

I have to agree, but you probably won't like why. I voted for both Bushes every time they ran, but lately I may sound like I'm on the Democratic/Liberal side. It's because the Republicans have been so dishonest over the last 20 years and they need to hear a little reality. Their crying alligator tears over possible tax "increases" is just maddening. Since 1970 the top individual and corporate tax rates have fallen to about 30% of what they were. We were told that these tax cuts would produce livable wage jobs, and revitalize our industries and our economy. Where are the jobs, and where did our factories go over the last 40 years? They've all moved to India, China, and Mexico. Tax cuts weren't enough. A fair profit wasn't enough. Paying reasonable wages and providing safe and humane working conditions was too expensive. The Republican mantra should be "What's mine is mine, and what's yours should be mine too." Somehow they've convinced the average American that the only thing standing between him and being a millionaire is the government. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Government regulation is the only thing standing between you and Archer-Daniels-Midland. If ADM and it's friends had their way you'd be riding to work on a bicycle and earning 50 cents an hour, and going home to a mud hut and a bowl of rice for dinner. Corporations do not have, ethics, morals, or hearts. There's no such thing as "enough" profit, and they don't care who gets trampled.

+ 14 trillion give or take.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

And please, feel free to tell me how you really feel, because I want to hear it.

My mother raised me better than that....and just so you know, I was forced to retire when Reagan was president, so I missed the late unpleasantness with your "power lords" (?)....

 

[dmancornell]

My mother raised me better than that....

No please, I want to hear how your service protects freedom of speech, and how the words of the oath can deviate from reality and the takers can remain faithful.

and just so you know, I was forced to retire when Reagan was president, so I missed the late unpleasantness with your "power lords" (?)....

Implying LBJ, Nixon and Reagan aren't war criminals just like GWB and Obama.

"Power lord" is just an expression for tyrants who crave power and exercise it without the consent of the governed, as well as the yes-men and entourages who worship the powerful. Basically the ruling class of the country. This article explains it: <broken link removed>

 

[Trlsmn]

I have to agree, but you probably won't like why. I voted for both Bushes every time they ran, but lately I may sound like I'm on the Democratic/Liberal side. It's because the Republicans have been so dishonest over the last 20 years and they need to hear a little reality. Their crying alligator tears over possible tax "increases" is just maddening. Since 1970 the top individual and corporate tax rates have fallen to about 30% of what they were. We were told that these tax cuts would produce livable wage jobs, and revitalize our industries and our economy. Where are the jobs, and where did our factories go over the last 40 years? They've all moved to India, China, and Mexico. Tax cuts weren't enough. A fair profit wasn't enough. Paying reasonable wages and providing safe and humane working conditions was too expensive. The Republican mantra should be "What's mine is mine, and what's yours should be mine too." Somehow they've convinced the average American that the only thing standing between him and being a millionaire is the government. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Government regulation is the only thing standing between you and Archer-Daniels-Midland. If ADM and it's friends had their way you'd be riding to work on a bicycle and earning 50 cents an hour, and going home to a mud hut and a bowl of rice for dinner. Corporations do not have, ethics, morals, or hearts. There's no such thing as "enough" profit, and they don't care who gets trampled.

The point you're missing is the grand screwing came from the Democrats and the Republicans, yet you think some how one of the two criminals is now here to help you!

 

[Trlsmn]

I was going to withdraw from this thread since the "warning" issued by Trlsmn earlier, but hey since this is now a Tea Party thread, why the heck not.

You received the warning that you deserved.

Since you brought it back up I will repost it for relevance.

Hey, you signed your life away to the killer government, don't make other people pay for whatever they did to you. When's the last time the armed forces did any sort of national defense? Nope, just a bunch of sick power lords murdering all over the globe to satiate the bloodlust and generate business for government-corporate defense contracts.

Which received this fair warning.

Originally Posted by Trlsmn

Dmancornell, don't post this here, take it elsewhere. This thread and this forum is about second amendment politics only. I respect your right to your opinion and your right to express your opinion. However, NWFA is not the place to have this kind of debate and actions will be taken to keep compliance with this rule, fair warning.

I personaly would never treat a serviceman in such a callus manor; reading your posts makes me ashamed to know it was posted here.

 

[dmancornell]

^

So what's the warning for? Deviating from 2A? Everyone here is already guilty of that.

 

[Trlsmn]

I am reposting the original post so that this thread can go back to it's original topic. Please make no more posts that don't have the original subject of the original post. I am the thread starter so I can ask this.

If anyone wishes to make posts with no relevance make them elsewhere.

The Subject is Obama's own words about gun control and making laws on such bypassing congress. This is second amendment relevant.

Obama To Unveil Gun Control Reforms In Near Future

<broken link removed>

WASHINGTON -- Half a year after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), the Obama administration is set to release a series of reforms to the current gun law, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said on Thursday.

The reforms, which are being crafted by the Department of Justice, come after a series of meetings with relevant stakeholders in the Second Amendment debate. But in a nod to the difficulties of getting legislation through a Republican-run House of Representatives, only executive orders or administrative actions -- and not an actual bill -- are expected to be handed to Congress.

Administration officials were coy on the specifics, from the reforms the Department of Justice would recommend or when it would actually make those recommendations.

"The president directed the Attorney General to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common sense measures that would improve American safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights," Carney said at Thursday's briefing. "That process is well underway at the Department of Justice with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues and we expect to have more specific announcements in the near future."

Just how near? Carney would only say "not far in the future." Another administration official said weeks would be an appropriate measurement.

When the recommendations do come, it will represent the most comprehensive move on the gun control front from this administration to date. The president has largely punted on the issue since entering the White House, save issuing carefully worded reactions to Supreme Court rulings on local gun laws or bans.

The Giffords shooting had, seemingly, upped the pressure to implement reforms. Obama himself used the occasion to pen an op-ed for the Arizona Daily Star advocating for stronger state-to-state coordination with respect to gun data, expedited background checks and greater enforcement of the laws already on the books. The Department of Justice meetings commenced not too long later and have continued over the course of several months, according to an administration official. They are now finished.

The end result, one source close to the discussions said, was a package of reforms "not huge in scope." They are largely expected to mirror the topics covered in the president's op-ed. Gun control advocates have pushed for more, including legislation that would limit the size of magazines -- such as the 32-round clip that Giffords' shooter used -- or a bill that would force private sellers to conduct background checks at gun shows -- which was pushed in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting.

 

[Trlsmn]

So what's the warning for? Deviating from 2A? Everyone here is already guilty of that.

Trolling and being disrespectful to a man who served his country so that you would have the right to be extremely rude to him in return, and drop it. I've set the subject, stick to it or find another thread to post in.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Note: Posted before Trism's direction back to the original topic.

The point you're missing is the grand screwing came from the Democrats and the Republicans, yet you think some how one of the two criminals is now here to help you!

You misunderstand. I said I sound lately as if I'm in the Democrat/Liberal camp. I'm ragging on the Republicans right now because they aren't even making a pretense of acting on any motive other than greed. The Democrats have their own horror show, but at least they are being a bit more circumspect at the moment. I'll blast them too when the time comes. The biggest problem we face is that in the mind of most people there are only two camps; the good guys, which is whatever camp they agree with on the issue du jour, or the enemy camp, which is populated 100% by criminals, murders, and puppy abusers. There is no other camp, no middle ground, no compromise, no reasoned argument. I have to be a sycophant of one ideology and hate the other, or vice versa. Well, I'm neither. Once in a while it's possible for either side to have a good idea. Mostly, both sides are pretending I'm stupid and trying to make me look the other direction while they line their pockets with my money. So don't put me in the "other" camp. I don't like any of them.

 

[Trlsmn]

You misunderstand. I said I sound lately as if I'm in the Democrat/Liberal camp. I'm ragging on the Republicans right now because they aren't even making a pretense of acting on any motive other than greed. The Democrats have their own horror show, but at least they are being a bit more circumspect at the moment. I'll blast them too when the time comes. The biggest problem we face is that in the mind of most people there are only two camps; the good guys, which is whatever camp they agree with on the issue du jour, or the enemy camp, which is populated 100% by criminals, murders, and puppy abusers. There is no other camp, no middle ground, no compromise, no reasoned argument. I'm have to be a sycophant of one ideology and hate the other, or vice versa. Well, I'm neither. Once in a while it's possible for either side to have a good idea. Mostly, both sides are pretending I'm stupid and trying to make me look the other direction while they line their pockets with my money. So don't put me in the "other" camp. I don't like any of them.

Can we please take this thread back on subject?

The Subject is Obama's own words about gun control and making laws on such bypassing congress. This is second amendment relevant.

 

[riverrat373]

Can we please take this thread back on subject?

The Subject is Obama's own words about gun control and making laws on such bypassing congress. This is second amendment relevant.

I doubt that any onerous gun control laws will be instituted BEFORE the 2012 election. The President and most politicians know that would be political suicide!

 

[Trlsmn]

I doubt that any onerous gun control laws will be instituted BEFORE the 2012 election. The President and most politicians know that would be political suicide!

That's kind of what I thought and then I wondered why he would mention it at all before elections? Perhaps a poll indicated that anti-gunners could use a little pandering and it wouldn't hurt the elections?

 

[ZigZagZeke]

OK, let's try this:

Obama is a political animal. I've never seen such a slick operator, barring maybe Clinton. Re-election is his only goal. I have no doubt that Obama would love to appease the Left with a new gun control effort. Until now he's been reluctant to touch that third rail publicly. But what the Republicans are doing at the moment might give him license to proceed a little more publicly. He can always point to them and their antics and ask "I'm not so bad, am I?" while he whittles away at the 2A in devious, non-confrontational ways. A lot of voters are not one issue voters. How's it going to look in the presidential debates when Obama points a finger at the Republican candidate and says "Your party is the one that almost caused (or maybe by then did cause) America to default on its obligations. Your party is the one that cut benefits to seniors to finance your war." A lot of voters will suddenly forget about a new AWB, or some federal registration system that's been instituted. All of this DOES relate to the 2A. I want to be able to vote for a 2A supporting candidate without feeling like I'm cutting my own throat economically.