Complete Gun Violence Package (read)

[cjaytch]

So then every president in the history of the U.S. did a whole lot of "unconstitutional" things... I wonder if you said it was "unconstitutional" when Ronnie Reagan or Dubya issued over 300 executive orders a piece in their presidencies... probably not because Fox News wouldnt have told you it was when Dubya was doing it (and didnt exist when Jesus Jr. I mean Reagan was in office).

The president is only empowered by the constitution to carry out laws enacted by congress. He has no authority to allocate funds or pass "executive orders" that carry the force of law. It was unconstitutional when Bush/Reagan/Lincoln/nixon did it and its unconstitutional when Carter/Clinton/Roosevelt/Obama does it. I cant speak for anyone else on here, but I denounced Bush as loudly in 2001 as I denounce Obama today.

But really, how do you get around the fact that the places with the strictest gun laws have not only the highest rates of gun violence but the highest rates of overall violence? you seem like a petty smart guy. How can you look at that and say "more gun control will fix this?" If guns cause crime, then out here in the country where I live, there should be a school shooting every other day. Every neighbor I have is armed.

Also, its not just lefties who like to disarm the population. Hitler disarmed the Jews before he began rounding them up. Any government that looks to disarm its people or limit/track their access to arms has nothing good in store for them.

[XXL TideFan]

A conservative who deludes himself into believing he or she is a high-minded thinker when really they just don't have the balls to pick a side.

Looks like your LEFT knee started jerking. Surely you realize that there are more than "two" sides to everything. The two sides in politics is actually the same, big government.

The technique is as old as politics itself. It is the Hegelian Dialectic of bringing about change in a three-step process: Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis.

The first step (thesis) is to create a problem. The second step (antithesis) is to generate opposition to the problem (fear, panic and hysteria). The third step (synthesis) is to offer the solution to the problem created by step one: A change which would have been impossible to impose upon the people without the proper psychological conditioning achieved in stages one and two.

[paintrockfan]

An independent thinker who realizes that both parties are just 2 wings of the same bird of prey.
Fixed that for you....

Thanks.

[paintrockfan]

Looks like your LEFT knee started jerking. Surely you realize that there are more than "two" sides to everything. The two sides in politics is actually the same, big government.

Surely you don't believe that every view needs its own party. Yes, there are more than two sides to many things but once you get past the oppositions the beliefs usually show similarities to one platform or the other. My post was of course meant to get a response (I am not that black and white) but I do believe that many claim their status as libertarian to make them feel as if they are "above the conventional" so to speak. Does that make sense?

[cjaytch]

Surely you don't believe that every view needs its own party. Yes, there are more than two sides to many things but once you get past the oppositions the beliefs usually show similarities to one platform or the other. My post was of course meant to get a response (I am not that black and white) but I do believe that many claim their status as libertarian to make them feel as if they are "above the conventional" so to speak. Does that make sense?

There is only ONE party in the US, that is the party of statism. It has 2 wings who bicker over how best to extract/spend your wealth and in which areas of your life the government should be more active in controlling. The current "2 party" system is a sham. It is designed so you can "throw the rascals out" and nothing really changes except the government gets bigger, more expensive and more totalitarian. A system where there were multiple parties would be better than what we have now.

I cant speak for others who claim the libertarian label, but as for myself, i dont feel it makes me "above the conventional". I am not a member of the Libertarian Party. I do feel that most Republicans only criticize Obama because he is a Democrat and most Democrats only criticize Bush because he is a Republican. Ideas and consistency rarely play into this criticism. Libertarian criticism of whoever is in power generally comes from ideas, logic, and consistency rather than allegiance to a party. So it should give us some "comment karma" but usually doesnt :)

Take for instance this video. This is the perfect example of how when the other guys party does something its "bad" but when my guy does it that makes it "ok". You could run the same experiment with Bush supporters and get the same results.

[psychojoe]

As I get further into my geezerhood I have come further and further into the libertarian camp. In spite of the furor every four years there is little practical differnece between the two parties.

XXL makes a great point about using/creating a crisis. Rahm Emanuel was quoted as saying in 2009 that you shouldn't let a crisis go to waste.

There is no mistake. We are all sad about the events in Sandy Hook. Of all the things that I have heard proposed since that dreadful event the only thing that could be done quickly and give a better chance of preventing a recurrence tomorrow is armed guards at every school.

Of all the other proposals the only one that I have any sympathy for is the improved background checks/mental health issues, which could keep some dangerous nutcases (see Va. Tech, Tucson, Aurora) from purchasing gun. Even there, abuse is possible. All the other proposals aren't going to take the existing firearms away from their owners and will only keep law abiding citizens from purchasing guns.

As XXL alluded to, Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. Chicago is also the murder capital of the U.S., with over 500 in 2012.

[bcracker]

The president is only empowered by the constitution to carry out laws enacted by congress. He has no authority to allocate funds or pass "executive orders" that carry the force of law. It was unconstitutional when Bush/Reagan/Lincoln/nixon did it and its unconstitutional when Carter/Clinton/Roosevelt/Obama does it. I cant speak for anyone else on here, but I denounced Bush as loudly in 2001 as I denounce Obama today.

But really, how do you get around the fact that the places with the strictest gun laws have not only the highest rates of gun violence but the highest rates of overall violence? you seem like a petty smart guy. How can you look at that and say "more gun control will fix this?" If guns cause crime, then out here in the country where I live, there should be a school shooting every other day. Every neighbor I have is armed.

Also, its not just lefties who like to disarm the population. Hitler disarmed the Jews before he began rounding them up. Any government that looks to disarm its people or limit/track their access to arms has nothing good in store for them.

All I can say to you, cjaytch, is "Amen!" or "Right on!", which ever you prefer.

[XXL TideFan]

Surely you don't believe that every view needs its own party. Yes, there are more than two sides to many things but once you get past the oppositions the beliefs usually show similarities to one platform or the other. My post was of course meant to get a response (I am not that black and white) but I do believe that many claim their status as libertarian to make them feel as if they are "above the conventional" so to speak. Does that make sense?

I understand you and don't believe that a party for every viewpoint is desirable but 5 or 6 would be far preferable to the one party that we have now. I am not a member of the Libertarian Party, I am at odds with their stance of open borders. Personal liberty and minimalist government is my stance. I am personally against abortion and homosexual marriage, but I believe that the government has no right poking its nose in either. They do their social engineering through an illegal tax code. Marriage is a religious institution, not a matter of the state. If a same sex couple want to get married, find a minister that does it and go for it. The government has the people at each others throats with emotional issues and keeps us from watching them as we should be. Being a Libertarian requires far more intellectual honesty than belonging to one of the government approved facets of government.

I firmly believe that if the majority of America were Libertarian, it would be a far greater country. I despise our imperial wars as much as the slave welfare state.

[cjaytch]

I understand you and don't believe that a party for every viewpoint is desirable but 5 or 6 would be far preferable to the one party that we have now.

Remember back in the 80's when it was a joke how the Soviet Union would have "elections" but the only party on the ballot was the Communist Party? Well here in the "Land of the Free" we have a whopping TWO choices on our ballots! See, we have twice the choice of people living under a communist dictatorships! Who says your votes dont matter? :)

[planomateo]

The government has the people at each others throats with emotional issues and keeps us from watching them as we should be.

you nailed it.