Our Rights are Eroding ... Or so We are Told

Michael,

If Freud is right at all, you've clearly identified a primary ideological difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals too often feel rights are something "given" to them by the government. What government gives it can take away. You've made multiple references to rights and freedom being "given" that is a notion I'm not sure I'm on board with.

Would you please answer a hypothetical? If homosexuals are "given" the right to marry, what if a church refuses to acknowledge or perform such marriages?

About gun rights, a matter I personally care little about, do you think Obama wishes to loosen gun restrictions?

The issue of gay marriage was never considered to be a 1st Amendment issue and won't be until the government forces the church to accept it. Hopefully a revolution starts if it does. The issue of religious freedoms began as the current administration required religious institutions to provide contraception funding to it's employees as a part of mandated health care coverage.

While the current administration did not directly attack private gun ownership, there is a clear attempt to "end run" the spirit of that right with a "little" program called "Fast and Furious".

Your opinion on gay marriage is noted. I hate to inform you of this but refusing to redefine marriage is not a violation of your freedom and it does not violate the Constitution. You still have the right to believe that gay/lesbian marriage is moral you still don't have the right to impose that on people that do not believe the same as you.

QUOTE - Regardless of what has been said over the past few years our religious rights are not being restricted. We are still free to practice the religion that we choose to without fear of the government throwing us in prison. There is no state religion so all religions are free to practice. UNQUOTE

Unfortunately for your opinion, there IS a state religion. It is atheist humanism, the religion required to be supported by tax dollars, imposed upon public school students by teachers, and enforced on all public lands...hence the multiple lawsuits aimed at removing any mention of Christianity from those same areas.

Free speech rights are restricted on the private property of every church in the country, enforced by the IRS.

Street preaching is a long-honored tradition in most religions, but will get you arrested and jailed today...unlike the first 150 years of our country. And those jailed are punished specifically for offending someone. So much for free speech.

QUOTE - If a worker wants to spout off about how much he hates the president while he is on the job he is free to do so. If his employer finds offense in what he says that employer is free to fire him. The Constitution specifically addresses the people's freedom of speech, it mentions nothing about job statuses. UNQUOTE

And yet a Christian business person that refers an immoral client to someone that doesn't mind doing business for them can be sued by that client and punished for discrimination. A church or pastor that refuses service on the grounds of morality can also be sued and punished. Yet here is a Democrat crowing about rights given to employers while ignoring rights removed from businesses, churches and individuals. Kind of off-message, aren't you, Mike?

Very well put MrsSmith...Social metrics seem to be measured by emotion by the liberals. Gone from their reasoning is the reality that absolute truth not only exists but is incredibly relevant. Also missing from their logic is that a deviancy from truth is a lie no matter how it is sliced.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." However the executive branch of the current administration is exempt from this, oh so annoying amendment.

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble... Unless you are TEA Party members, and then of course you have no rights because you are racist.

"...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Unless you happen to be a reporter for the Daily Caller, and then you must be harrangued, chastised, and have your press credentials revoked. Or you could be the parents of a murdered border patrol agent...and then you would just have to suck it up and live with it. Or you happen to be Joe American who hates that KardashianCare was stuffed down your throat...

Chunky you do realize that the "Fast and Furious" program that you love to lay at the feet of Obama was actually started in 2006 under Bush, yes?

I just kind of figured that if the program didn't matter to you from 2006 to January 2009 why should it matter to me from then on.

Ah MrsSmith how I have missed your misinformed, sometimes outright lying views.

"Unfortunately for your opinion, there IS a state religion. It is atheist humanism, the religion required to be supported by tax dollars, imposed upon public school students by teachers, and enforced on all public lands...hence the multiple lawsuits aimed at removing any mention of Christianity from those same areas."

You are completely out of touch with what actually goes on in public schools and this statement proves that. The lie about the multiple lawsuits is a whopper as well.

Could you possibly site any arrests of people that have been arrested for street preaching, because for the life of me I can't find any.

Mickel that has to be the most ridiculous stupid comment you have ever made. A TEA Party member being called a racist does not, in any way, restrict their freedom of speech. In fact, the TEA Party for their entire run has been allowed to do pretty much as they see fit. Your reality is a strange one.

The moron from the daily caller interrupted the President clear as day, they (and apparently you) can spin it anyway they want. Even other conservative press organizations were calling them out on their idiocy.

If homosexuals are "given" the right to marry, what if a church refuses to acknowledge or perform such marriages?

Then they can choose some other place to get married. Pretty simple.

"If a worker wants to spout off about how much he hates the president while he is on the job he is free to do so. If his employer finds offense in what he says that employer is free to fire him."

Michael,

This is quite diffrent than your position that the teachers that left their job to protest shouldn't be punished. Remember, the discussion was about lying about why they weren't at work. You were pretty adamant about the right to protest then. Why is this different now? Is it because you are talking about critisizing the current sitting president, and not any other elected official? Or have you had a change of heart about what employers should be allowed to do?

Just to be fair, I do agree with your view on homosexual marriage. If the government wants to recognize marriage however it is fit, that's fine. However, if there are discrimination lawsuits filed and upheld because a church won't allow the ceremony to take place in their place of worship... that is where I would have to get out the sandwhich board. That has always been my concern. That would be right up there with the Catholic hospital/charity debate about the insurance in my book.

Michael,

P.S. "fast and furious" was not a bush era program. "operation wide reciever" was. So, you are either misinformed, or misleading.

Operation "Wide Receiver" was a joint operation between the U.S and Mexican governments. Here, 300 firearms had GPS tracking devices placed and were monitered by ATF agents from the point of sale to the US/Mexico border.

Now with "Operation Fast and Furious", 2000 untrackable firearms were were sold and smuggled without ATF monitering. Those 2000 firearms ended in the hands of the warring drug cartels where innocent civilians were murdered, and at least one US Border agent was murdered.

This operation was not done as a joint US/Mexico effort as "Wide Receiver". The weapons of "Fast and Furious" were not track able as the weapons of "Wide Receiver" was. The weapons of "Fast and Furious" were not stopped at the border as the weapons of "Wide Receiver was. There was very little ATF and DOJ involvement in "Fast and Furious" as there was total monitering of both ATF and DOJ in "Wide Receiver. There are no known murders of the weapons of "Wide Receiver" as there are known deaths by the weapons of "Fast and Furious".

Michael,

"Then they can choose some other place to get married. Pretty simple."

So are you condoning discrimination against homosexuals?

Michael - please don't let facts or accuracy get in the way of your liberal ranting. It just wouldn't be you...

I would contend that one of the reasons that the TEA Parties were getting shouted down as "racist" was to, in fact, try and shut them up. For all the vitriol the Dems gave them during the signing of Obamacare, and the calls of racism; there never was a video produced to back the assertions of the Dems that the TEA Party was hurling racist comments.

But, once again, I wouldn't expect accuracy to be one of your priorities. Especially when your candidate is showing the shelf life of a roadkill racoon in July.

Since you want to label the Daily Caller reporter a moron for interrupting the President...are you going to hold members of the liberal media to the same standard for reprehensible behavior? Ooooo...THAT would be new.

Posted especially for grandmajo's viewing pleasure:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/forkless-friday-at-obama-event-127056...

Enjoy!

I think people need to think about these two idiots! ( Father & Son, Hendricks ) The father brags about trying to break up a marriage, and then cries about it in the gazette when his prize stays with her husband!! Two sides to every story Mike!! The son, isn't even worth commenting about. When the heat's on him, he disappears for awhile and then shows back up again when the dust has settled, just to stir things up again! Worst of all, these two are teaching our young people how they are going to live their lives! Do we really want our kids a grandkids to listen to this garbage? I know everybody is entitited to their opinion, but your not going to tell me this isn't taught in their classrooms.

i am anxiously waiting for Michael's response to Sir Didymus' p.s. assertion on 06/23/2012. Please get your research done so you can enlighten us some more.

"Could you possibly site any arrests of people that have been arrested for street preaching, because for the life of me I can't find any."

Michael - you blindly lambasted MrsSmith without doing YOUR homework. So you are either lazy, lying or are stupid. (different from ignorant...ignorant can be corrected) Either way, take your pick.

Here's a link to the first Bing page about street preachers being arrested. It took three seconds to search and resulted in over 13 million hits:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=arrested%20street%20preaching&PQ=arrested%20street&...

"The lie about the multiple lawsuits is a whopper as well." Here is a Bing search page that listed over 51 million "whoppers"....advantage...MrsSmith.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=lawsuits%20to%20remove%20christian%20symbols&FORM=A...

Maybe MrsSmith wasn't so wrong about school curriculum either...just because you are a teacher, doesn't make you an expert on curriculum. Heck, I drive a car; but I can't give a late model car an overall service.

Let's look...let's just use that Bing page again and look up atheist humanism school curriculum....Hmmm - a paltry 403K hits. Still - some of the links were very telling.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=atheist%20humanism%20school%20curriculum&FORM=AGWBL...

I'm sure MrsSmith just smiled as she read your pedantic little rant...and the rest of us are cracking up.

What's wrong with secular humanism?

Anything that elevates reason over superstition and has bent toward social justice and equality before the law is a worthy foundation from which to form curricula (in my opinion).

Benevolus,

There really nothing wrong with being a secular humanist. As a former secular humanist, I loved it. It made reason to believe I was the center of the universe, it's human nature. I could bed any woman I wanted with no consequences, it's human nature. I could drive by the less fortunate and make judgement on who I wanted to help, if any at all, it's human nature. I could lie about myself, or anyone else for that matter and justify it because it's just human nature.

Secular humanism is a religion in itself. It is the worship of one self. Before you can make the claim that Christan's do the same, they don't.

Maybe it was for you, CPB, but that isn't necessarily the way it is for all people. It sounds like you needed some structure and dogma. Not all people do...there are strong, moral people outside of the religious/superstitious people in this world.

The religious/superstitious you describe are merely the humanist with a god in his pocket. There can be no structure or dogma with secular humanism otherwise it's not secular.

Give yourself some time, the true humanist in you will shine through.

I don't think you understand secular humanism very well.

Please, enlighten me.

First of all there are many different branches of humanism, including Christian humanism (which is about 2000 years old). Philosophers distinguish between capital 'H' Humanism (the science and reasoning kind)and humanist principles writ large. In other words, Humanism = secular; humanism = many forms including Christian nonsecular.

All forms of humanism, including secular, have at their core, the human-being as the unit of moral and ethical analysis. Secular humanists are generally interested in critically examining the human reasoning that creates ethical and moral systems, and religious humanists are generally interested in how human logic can be applied to matters of supernaturalism/divinity.

The idea that somehow secular humanists are less moral/ethical than anyone else is of course absurd. The philosophy, for Humanists, is that ethical/moral behavior is possible through reason and logic rather than a belief in a God. For example, a Christian will not cheat on his wife because he believes God will get mad at him. A Humanist will not cheat on his wife because he reasons that the potential benefits of an affair are far out-weighed by the potential damage an affair would do to his wife, his family, and the stability of his life.

Of course, just like Christianity (or any other belief system) Humanists are not always moral/ethical because humans are not perfectly rational creatures.

The form of humanism you describe is a cheap attempt to steal the word of Jesus Christ and make them man inspired. When in the history of mankind has man, when left to his own way has ever shown compassion and mercy to his fellow man? Never.

Also, a Christian man does not chose to not cheat on his wife because he is afraid of God being mad at him. He avoids adultry because of the loss of trust it creates between he and his wife and family. God instructed him not to do so for this reason. Same reason as yours, just God inspired, and not a borrowed concept as your's.

Which form? I described several. One could argue that Christian humanism is a "cheap" way to reconcile the superstitious with the reasoned and logical. Moreover, a history of religion in general (and Christianity is certainly a large contributor) reveals many millions more dead than for any other cause in human history.

It is not valid to assert those who have (and who do) claim Jesus as their moral compass also maintain a moral high-ground. Religion has done just as much bad as it has done good.

"I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Mahatma Gandhi

A quick aside: how will you reconcile the inaccuracy of the creation story as told by the bible with the recent discovery of the Higgs boson?

I will agree with you there, Benevolus, a large percentage of Christians are not the reflection of Jesus Christ that they are supposed to be. That's where Christianity becomes a mere religion. It was meant to be a relationship.

Higgs Boston, is that the theroritical particle that all the particulate physicists are hoping actually exists? I hope they do someday can prove it exists, it will prove God does exist.

Read the news Chunk. Scientists at CERN did find it (well, there is a 1 in 3.5 million chance--"5 sigma"--they didn't.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0705/Higgs-boson-discovery-could-usher-in-...

Unfortunately, it doesn't prove or disprove god, it just explains where matter gets mass...oh and assuming that this isn't one of the worst Type I errors in history, Higgs-B also disproves Genesis and the whole Christian creation story.

In order for Higgs-boson to actually be proven, it has to go through peer review to be good science. Which has yet to be done.

Now for the question, how would H-b disprove Genesis?

I am glad we agree about peer-reviewed science. And normally, I would say that you make a fair point. Peer-reviewed science is what makes science credible (for example, the fact that climate change has been well documented in peer-reviewed journals "proves"--your word--it is real). In this case, however, two separate experiments yielded a result with a 5-sigma level of certainty. This is the absolute gold standard for scientific discovery. In other words, journal editors will almost literally be fighting for the rights to publish the forthcoming papers. Typically, it is the researcher clamoring for recognition, that is not the reality this time.

Regarding the Genesis story: the H-b was the missing piece for the Standard Model of the universe (or the theory of everything, as scientists call it). Without the H-b, all of theoretical physics, including theories of relativity and gravity would have had to be overhauled. The math simply wasn't working out (hence, the theories of dark matter and dark energy). But if the H-b could be proven to exist, it would mean the completion of the standard model, and thus, it would demonstrate the so-called "big bang" model of creation, definitively. In doing so, the final nail is in the coffin for the 6,000 year old earth (as extrapolated from the Bible).

In other words, the H-b means the observed and the theoretical are harmonious; H-b completes the theory that the universe is roughly 13.4 billion years old, the earth is roughly 4.5 billion, and that at some point approx 13.4 billion years ago, the entire universe was infinitely small and infinitely massive, and then....bang.

All of that to say, a reading of Genesis--which claims a young earth, created as is, in 6 earth days, 6000 years ago--cannot be taken literally, without violating the facts of nature.

Actually peer review is terribly lacking in the attempt to verify global warming, either natural or man-made. I have yet to see any actual research in the relationship between Higgs boson and the age of the universe.

I will however, keep my mind open to see if, or how Higgs boson actually disproves the Biblical account of creation, or verifies it.

Chunky,

You can't have it both ways. If peer-review makes good science as you argue, and if research regarding climate change appears in peer-reviewed journals, then, by YOUR logic, the science must be accurate. I agree with you, by the way, peer-reviewed journals have established for the last decade that climate change is real. Again, kudos for your admission.

More to the point: the H-b completes the chasm between the observations and the mathematics of the Standard model of the universe...FYI the standard model of the universe directly contradicts Genesis.

It is a simple matter of logic:

If Higgs-boson

Then, no Genesis

Claiming that Global warming is peer reviewed science is incorrect.

It is not peer reviewed Science - the main concept, that the amount of CO2 absorption in water is pure speculation. That fact is neglected to normal Humans when the Science is explained.

Weather is cyclical. The warm temps the United States is experiencing currently is due to a High that has settled in over the United States. Europe is actually quite mild.

I find it ironic that Humans still believe after 6000 years that we can still control the weather. That is the oldest myth of man. The Pharaohs in Eqypt were in charge of causing it to rain so the Nile River would flood. Now Humans believe that by burning coal we can increase temps. When the cyclical nature of weather has started a Glacier advance in North America and Europe a lot of people will be burning a lot of Coal to try and make the ice recede.

If climate change isn't peer-reviewed science then how do we explain the thousands of studies regarding climate change that appear in peer-reviewed journals?

That is an amazing mystery, Wallis.

I think you have somethings confused. Climate change is 100% real. Anthropogenic climate change is something being debated. The climate is and has always been changing...we are currently in the midst of another shift. The question that scientists are trying to discern is whether or not human activity has had a impact in facilitating climate change.

Much of that research (almost all in fact) that is both for and against anthropogenic climate change appears in peer-reviewed journals as well. Sorry, Wallis, but you are way off on this one.

The latest on "Fast and Furious".

http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/KatiePavlich/2012/09/28/fast_and_furious_to_fortu...

Here's the distinction Benevolus. Wallis calls it Global Warming, something it hasn't been called for a long time. The two (Global Warming and Climate Change) are not synonymous but Wallis continually ignores that.

Michael, you remind me of the blind guy examining an elephant.

Here is a great article about ONE of the freedoms we are losing; the freedom from unreasonale shttp://dailyreckoning.com/the-secrets-of-room-641a/earches and seizures:

Global Warming and Climate Change ARE synonymous=they were invented by the same group of fools.

Take care, JG

Michael, you remind me of the blind guy examining an elephant.

Here is a great article about ONE of the freedoms we are losing; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizure: shttp://dailyreckoning.com/the-secrets-of-room-641a/

Global Warming and Climate Change ARE synonymous=they were invented by the same group of fools.

Take care, JG

Mike and Ben - Man made Global warming is not real.

The Climate has been changing for years. I have debated Mike for years as to why have we had glacial advance and retraction prior to man? It proves my point that we have had cooling and warming without man.

Man made global warming assumes increased temp due to increased CO2 in water among other things.

Global warming is faith based. Science kills it.

Wallis

So, wait, now you are not a climate change denier? I have never disagreed with you on the man made part. The science on it is still young.

But your statement is rather confusing, the global climate changes yet global warming is a myth? Are they not one in the same (other than the fact that as whole global warming is not used anymore).

Looks like this post needs to be revisited. Our rights, Second Amendment specifically, could be very much taken away by executive order.

How so? What specifically are you forecasting?

No

FYI CPB, you might be interested in Section 2716 part C of the Affordable Care Act. Harry Reid amended Obamacare with a secret provision regarding your rights as a gun owner.

I'll save you the hassle of actually looking it up:

(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.--

(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.-- A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to--

(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully- possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or

(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
''

(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.--None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to--

(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;

(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or

(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.--None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/10/gun-advocates-celebrate-secret-...

You may cease with the Hitler comparisons.

I believe the obama care provision only applies the the health care provider. The health care providers cannot use the legal use or legal possession of firearms as a basis to form a data base to store the legal firearm owner's data.

However, change the definitions of what a legal firearm is, then those provisions can now be used as a means of data collection. Plus, that simple change in definition can also cause the otherwise once legal firearm owner to loose insurance coverage.

Again, the obama care provision applies to the health care industry only. It does not affect the justice department at all. Yes, please take your time in reading this scheme.

CPB,

I am glad you understood the clearly written phrase "Wellness and health promotion activities". Here is what you are missing though...

The DEMOCRATS saw that there was a loophole in Obamacare whereby the collection of data and information about lawful gun owners might be made possible. Harry Reid acted to close that loophole by amending Obamacare in a way that prevents the legislation from being a vehicle to collect data on gun owners.

Not very Hitler-esque.

No, hairy reed was facing immense political pressure from gun-owners in 2010, he put that he inserted that provision in hopes to appease them. The language used in that bill allows the definitions of what constitutes a lawful gun to be changed.

CPB,

First of all, dictators typically do not listen to the will of the people. That is, "immense political pressure" tends to be something that doesn't determine a dictators policies. If Obama were a dictator a la Hitler, and wanted to 'take yer guns', kowtowing to political pressure would not be likely to occur.

In this case, Harry Reid acted on behalf of the sentiments of the majority of the nation to protect gun owner's rights. It is even more admirable if he submitted this amendment while not personally agreeing with it.

Regarding your comment about what constitutes a lawful gun, that should be subject to change.

Under the current POTUS, firearm prosecutions were down 40%. Most of the expansions of lawful firearms were enacted by individual states. All POTUS did was not renew expired useless gun and magazine bans. Not an expansion on the federal level, but by the states.

CPB,

You are wrong again. Obama has passed two bills extending the rights of gun owners to carry firearms in National Parks as well as on Amtrak trains. Please try to get your facts straight.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-vs-romney-gun-control-2012-9

That's it? Fugured you have a real blockbuster. But that is about to change.

Obamacare also protects gun rights. That's 3 tallies in the pro-gun column, and 0 in the anti-gun column for Obama.

At this point, the Hitler comparison has fallen completely apart.

Obama-care only deals with gun rights within the health care side. It totally allows the definition of lawful firearms and lawful ownership to be changed. The current war of lawful and constitutional firearm ownership is not the battle of obama-care, but who has the constitutional authority to change the Constitution. If the POTUS can, then we are dealing with a true tyrant, we are seeing the next stalinhitlermaopotamin etc.

Tyranny alway slips in under the guise of safety.

CPB,

I realize that it deals with "the health care side". What you are failing to grasp is the simple notion that an anti-gun tyrant would have used Obamacare to reduce the rights of gun owners, not protect them.

The bottom line is that the basis for comparison between Obama and any dictator is founded in fanaticism, ignorance, and a lack of knowledge of history and politics.

So in conclusion, we as law-abiding citizens, are safer if we choose to legally own and use firearms to defend our homes, family and property. Research proves this. It is also proven that an a legally armed citizen with a concealed carry permit, and equiped with the training that goes with it, can stop an armed attack at the point of occurance.Also in conclusion, any attempt to disarm, or hinder their ability to defend themselves, will increase violent crimes. We also conclude that any attempt to disarm or otherwise hinder an American citizen to adequately defend their their home and property is a violation of the 2nd Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.The 2nd Amendment of the U. S. Constitution guarantees the citizens the right to own firearms not only for their own personal enjoyment and safety, but also to fully defend the Constitution from a tyrannical government.

Not quite. Guns do not make you less likely to be the victim of a crime. Guns do offer a way to protect yourself, your family, and/or your property should you become a victim of a crime.

Guns have the potential to stop attacks when they occur, but there are more instances of an armed citizen either being killed or not drawing their weapon than there are instances of an armed citizen actually stopping an attack.

We cannot conclude that an assault weapons ban is a violation of the constitution. The most recent US Supreme court case decided that banning handguns is not constitutional, but even Scalia in that majority opinion left the door open for other gun bans. Most courts, both state and federal, have upheld assault weapons bans.

To your last point, all the guns in the world wouldn't be of any help against the technological advantages enjoyed by the US military. This is an antiquated argument that was relevant when the everyone had a musket, and a cannon was the most significant battlefield advantage the government enjoyed.

Ben - please tell me the foreign countries you have visited. Your point of reference is obviously a United States/Western Europe perspective with peaceful Governments.

Through my oilfield career I have seen Armed military in the streets with a "strongman" in control. You are correct about the United States Military and a point of the 2nd Amendment is to stop our military from total control.

The right for the citizens to bear arms is to protect ourselves from a Military takeover. One could argue that a pistol and a shotgun isn't going to do much good against an Army with Bazookas and M-16's. You are calling out and making fun of and mocking the people that would actually try and fight for you in a "black swan event".

And before you think that can't happen less than 70 years ago over 100 million people died in a World War.

Just because you are in your 20's and haven't had a real job and teach school courses doesn't mean you have seen or experienced some of the injustices of the real world. I wish I hadn't but I have and I accept the fact that the past can and likely will repeat. If History has taught us anything it is that "anything is possible".

Wallis

Wallis,

To answer your first question, I have been to Canada, Mexico, France, UK, Spain, and Morocco. And while I am sure that you have seen and experienced a great deal more than I have, your perspective is no less "western" than mine, I assure you. One doesn't need to read a whole lot more than the post above to understand that you are "western" through and through, Wallis.

Moreover, I don't remember calling anyone out, or making fun of and mocking anyone that would actually fight for me (whoever they are). My point, which is a fact, is that roughly 1/2 the US population (it's probably more like 40-45%) own a gun that would be utterly and totally useless in your "black swan event".

The reality is that most people probably wouldn't fight, or fight very hard or for very long. There would certainly be enough people that would fight that it would make the job of finding them and disarming them difficult. But in the age of incredibly sophisticated tanks, air support, rocket artillery, laser guided munitions, Type 3a body armor and above--some of which is effective against .30-06 Springfield M2 armor piercing ammo and the like--etc., I simply can't see there being much of a fight.

By the way, I have had plenty of "real jobs", Wallis. Probably more than you.

Facts sound petulant to GED holders, I am sure.

Oh so you did graduate high school actually? Nothing about your posts would indicate much education. Sorry for my presumption.

Your diatribe about the fight is spot on benny except for the fact the war is not going to be against the army. The war will be against the liberal socialist leaders who think they can control the army. The guards who protect our hypocritical liberal socialists do not carry "incredibly sophisticated tanks, air support, rocket artillery". Rather, they carry the same weaponry used by the millions of law abiding citizens. When Michael Moore, Pelosi, Feinstein, Emmanuel, Fwank, Richard Maddow, and any other liberals who espouse gun control for the masses while protecting themselves with guns go to far I predict it will be they and their guards on the front lines and not our military.

Delusions of grandeur never fail to entertain.

Liberals are not the ridiculous morons clamoring for civil war, the over-throw of the government, etc. They are not the ones gnashing their teeth and tearing their hair worrying about Hitler analogies and the death of America. Local law enforcement, federal law enforcement, and the US military will follow directives given by their chain of command, including, stopping any "black swan events" that may arise out of extremist rightwing stupidity.

These "black swan events" simply won't happen so the military WILL NOT get involved. I predict there will be events that the military nor swans will attend causing liberal sympathizers to wear black at the funerals.

If liberals do not wish for the coming civil war then they had better stop there teeth nashing hair tearing assault on law abiding citizens and the liberties found in the constitution that protect said law abiding citizens. There is only so much marching towards socialism and liberal control that the law abiding masses are going to take.

This is not grandeur, this is the coming history of the United States. Liberalism will not stop until it has either bankrupted the host or is confronted by the host. I predict confrontation as it is my belief the doers and law abiders of this society will not watch as the Obama's and Pelosi's lead us to ruination.

There will be no war. You are delusional.

Though I do hope to watch your attempt on CNN (Waco and the Montana Freemen events were fascinating to me).

However, I will not weep at your imprisonment or your demise. At this point the world needs less fanatics, not more.

2.5 million time each year do the private ownership and presence of firearms stop a crime.

You are confusing people holing up and cowering in fear from their crimes with brave individuals fed up with cowardly liberals ramming socialism down their throats. What I believe is coming is not comparable to anything other than the Tea Party. David Koresh was a psycho. Patriots are not psychos.

The National Survey of Criminal Victimization puts the figure at 100,000 instance per year in which guns are involved in the self-defense against crime. The vast majority of these instances are a weapon simply being brandished (not fired); the presence of a weapon is enough to deter a criminal (there goes the argument for high capacity magazines, eh?).

The 2.5 million statistic you cite comes from a 1995 study, and much of the data in that study was collected in the 80's (30 years ago).

Also, the study in question merely aggregated polls of gun owners who said they had "used" their gun in defense of their house. These instances included grabbing a weapon to investigate a noise outside, and "defending" against a raccoon, possum, etc.

Also, the FBI tracks justifiable homicides and between 2005-2010 there were just 213. That is an average of 35.5/year over that time period. If the 2.5 million number were true, it means that a mere .00142% of "gun defenses" ended in a fatality. That is unrealistically low (almost comically so). If the number is 100,000 per year, it is a more reasonable .04%.

Guns certainly save lives and property. It just is not as widespread as you would have us believe. I would agree that guns probably save more lives and property than they take. The good news is that your fear that someone's "gunna take yer guns", is completely irrational, unsubstantiated, and will never happen.

"Patriots are not psychos."

Perhaps not. But many psychos are patriots.

I cheerily await your revolution, married. Good luck to you. (Can you get this thing underway soon, please? I am gonna be seriously busy after March.)

Also, in 2010 there were roughly 300 million guns in the US, which means that in 2010, 99.97% of all the guns in the US WERE NOT USED to defend a person or property.

You may stop being irrational in 3...2...1...

And that, my little friend, is a good thing. It is always better to be trained for gun combat and not have to use it than to be left unarmed and need it.

The number is 2.5 million times.

Well, at least you are consistent CPB, no matter the topic you never let facts get in your way.

Or maybe you can just have "faith" that your number isn't inflated 25 times that of the realistic number?

Here is research that puts it at 1,000,000.

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st176.pdf

A real criminologist, Gary Kleck, puts it at:

http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

The facts are standing right in front of you. Or do you just stand in the way?

My wife and I spent the last couple day talking to our 10 closest friends each. Out of 20, 4 have used guns to ward off attacks. All women.

Are you a misogynist as well Benovolus?

He would rather see the once free American stripped of their right to defend themselves, their property, and their liberty just so his beloved government can impose its will on American people. The world he invisions is a populace left completely defenseless, even against rape. Sounds like a person consumed with hatred, yes even against women, a misogynist.

A person of love could never think like that.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/15/3183246/two-robbery-suspects-shot-dead.htm...

http://www.kens5.com/news/SAPD-Car-thief-killed-another-wounded-outside-Stone-Oa...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/09/Woman-Pulls-Gun-on-Knife-Wiel...

http://www.examiner.com/article/robber-armed-with-cattle-prod-stopped-by-handgun...

http://naturalsolutionsradio.com/blog/natural-solutions-radio-administrator/8-ho...

CPB,

2.5 million, down to 1 million, back up to 2.5 million. You have no idea what you are talking about, you are just regurgitating things without thinking even remotely critically about them. As I explained above the more accurate number is a modest 100,000/year.

Also, how does disagreeing with you about the number of gun defenses per year make me a misogynist? That's like asking: are you a racist because you disagree with Obama?

Don't be dumb, CPB.

The numbers really are not important, the fact is guns are used to thwart criminal actvity. If a gun is used to stop a murder, it's a success. If a gun is used to stop a rape, it's a success. If a gun is used to stop a burglery, it's a success. If a gun is used to stop tyranny, it's a success.

It doesn't matter how the gun operates, how many rounds it holds, what color it is, or what shape it is, taking away a primary right to defend oneself IS TYRANNY.

I hope those hopefully brave congressmen and senators will use the tool of impeachment if POTUS impose his will on us. I hope our state joins Texas and Wyoming in barring the feds from confiscating our rights!

If a gun is used to kill 22 kids, is that a success? How about 12 adults in a theater? Is that a success? The door swings both ways, CPB. You irrationally point out successes while ignorantly denying the clear and increasing problems of gun violence.

There are sensible solutions, plenty of them. But extreme points of view (from either side) detract and make it more difficult for those of us who wish for rational, competent, and legal solutions to this national problem.

"But, benny boy, we do get called racists when we disagree with obama!"

Then "you" should be the last people to call someone a misogynist for disagreeing about guns defending people's homes.

That is what failure looks like Benevolus. Failure to defend the innocent. Failure to to allow the capable to defend the innocent.

You can now stop your little tap dance on their graves.

Gma,

You lumped yourself in with CPB. In response to your post the "you" was in quotes, I referred not to you specifically, but to "your people", whom you claim CPB is a part. Clearly that GED isn't helping you understand the written word very well.

CPB,

What's funny about all this is that you and I don't disagree very much...but here you are armed with same the tired and predictable array of zealot's arguments that everyone else of your ilk parrots as facts.

I am unsure what you mean by tap dance, but your ignorance and unwillingness to listen to even someone who has a not so dissimilar viewpoint, discredits the memory of the departed far more than I ever could.

If I am tap dancing, you are defecating.

Dancing and defecating have nothing to do with this post benny boy. You are going to bring mini out of retirement with all this talk of pooping and cavorting as it is not going to set well.

Huh?

Sneaking in the back door:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/17/does-white-house-plan-enlist-doctors-...

Federal health care law "Does not prohibit doctors from asking their patients about guns in their homes."

Really? That's what you are worried about? Get serious, CPB.

Proof crime reduction is not the goal of this administration.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/biden-to-nra-we-dont-have-the-time-to-prosecut...

Yes, CPB, I am sure that passes your incredibly low standards for "proof". I am sure if we have "faith" that what you say is true, it simply must be so.

This is actually very air tight proof that crime reduction is not their goal. Otherwise they would go after illegal purchases of firearms. If after reading VPOTUS comments, and you still refuse to acknowledge this, then sadly you have nothing to debate.

Again, reducing violence is not their goal:

http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2013/01/19/bozell-column-obama-prote...

Not having resources or manpower to enforce the law isn't the same as not caring about the law or not wanting to reduce crime.

Also, if a desire to not enforce gun laws is a part of this administration's philosophy, that completely ruins your arguments about gun control, tyranny, and despotism.

More importantly though, you cannot logically argue that a desire to not enforce this specific gun equates with not wanting to reduce crime in general. That's the weakest argument from you yet, CPB.

It proves this administration is not concerned about crime, or apathy towards it. It does expose this administration's pure hatred to those who abide the laws. Absolutely nothing in their strategy to "stop" gun violence will work.

No it doesn't. It proves that this admin believes that enforcing this specific gun law is difficult because of a lack of resources and man power. That is the ONLY reasonable conclusion you can come to...your zealotry though allows for all kinds of wild-eyed nonsense.

Lack of resources? Lack of personel? Did the FBI get defunded this past 4 years? ATF, I could understand with Fast 'N Furious. Either I missed something, or you did benevolus.

I missed nothing. Your article simply doesn't prove what you say it does. You are a partisan blinded by zeal. Your statement on Arley's blog confirms this suspicion.

That article proved everthing. This administration refuses to prosecutes illegal firearms purchases, yet as Fast 'n Furious proves they are willing to allow a certain level of murder to advance their agenda. Perhaps you didn't miss it, perhaps you agree with it.

Your comment from mike's "Hitler...ends" proves it.

But that isn't true. In 2012 there were 44 of 62 prosecutions, according to your article--that's a 71% conviction rate (not great, but not horrible either). So, the admin doesn't refuse to prosecute. That conclusion is illogical and false, and your instance on that conclusion is revealing.

Also, your statement is that the admin is not concerned about crime. This is also illogical because if we accept the premise that the admin is not concerned about false gun documents, that has no bearing on the admins concern about other kinds of crime. At its very best your argument commits a fallacy of composition (i.e., you infer something is wholly true based on one example).

You are arguing that the admin is unconcerned about this gun law, therefore, the admin is unconcerned about all crime.

That is like saying, Rush Limbaugh is a fat pill-popping Conservative who can't stay married, therefore, all Conservatives are fat pill-poppers who can't stay married.

Of those not prosecuted, 29% declined by prosecutor. Way too high of a percentage to even come close to saying you are serious about stopping illegal firearms transaction. Illegally obtained firearms are the source of gun-involved crimes.

29% is on the low side of good. 80% conviction rates are typically considered good.

Also, the admin doesn't decide if a prosecutor throws out a case or not, once again demonstrating you have no idea what you are talking about.

As a taxpayer, and one who lives a life within the laws of this country, is it unreasonable to demand 100% prosecution rates? The public servants have a tendency to forget who it is they are working for. We taxpayer need to start demanding prosecuters do their jobs, or get rid of them.

Of course it is unreasonable. Highly unreasonable in fact. Not 100% of cases brought to trial can be expected to result in a conviction.

Some cases lack evidence. Some are thrown out on technicalities like search and seizure rules (out of the prosecutor's control). In some cases a defense makes a better argument than the prosecution. And some cases still, there is enough evidence to prosecute a trial, but ultimately not enough evidence to obtain a guilty verdict.

8/10 is pretty good. 7/10 is decent. Much below that and we have a prosecutor(s) that isn't doing a very good job.

So we have established a link connecting how this administration, and those who love them, is willing to allow a certain level of murder to push it's agenda for a firearm ban. This agenda includes the refusal to prosecute illegal gun purchases thus allowing firearms to be posessed by violent felons and the mentally deranged in hopes those firearms be use for the earlier stated premise.

Those are some incredible leaps of logic. The answer to your comment is this: wrong again.

First of all, your assumption that illegal gun paperwork is tantamount to murder is completely ridiculous. Some people, for example, may have been convicted of DUI3 (or more), so they may be a felon, may have tried to falsify documents to get a gun, but are nonviolent offenders who do not intend to use a gun in a crime. This could be true of almost any nonviolent offenders. It could also be true of some violent offenders as well. The fact is, people can circumnavigate guns laws without being murderers. That should be obvious to anyone with a rational mind.

So that argument is cooked.

Also, the idea that this admin refuses to prosecute is plainly erroneous per your source; A) there are prosecutions; B) some states bar local law enforcement from helping to enforce federal gun laws; C) the admin doesn't directly control prosecution, federal prosecutors in the area (or district) where the crime occurred do.

This admin, per Biden's comment, suggests that a dearth of manpower and resources make it difficult or impossible to prosecute all these cases. They also claim that it's difficult to distinguish a mistake on a form from an intent to deceive. These claims do not equate to a refusal to prosecute, nor to an acceptance of murder. If anything, they are an indication that given more resources and manpower (i.e., more government workers checking and verifying the forms) these laws would be better enforced.

Moreover, the executive orders recently signed prove the exact opposite of what you claim to be true: the admin appears sincerely concerned about gun violence, and stopping gun crime.

Of the 23 executive orders signed 4 pertain to mental health, and Obama's proposed legislation strengthens that commitment to a substantial extent.

And of the 23 executive orders at least 9 (arguably more) directly impact those attaining guns illegally, including 6 orders to increase enforcement of gun law background checks.

In conclusion, it is an easier case to make that this admin is going to all the necessary lengths it reasonably and legally can to keep US citizens safe from domestic gun violence.

Who heads up the justice department? Who nominated that person. What political party is pushing for nonsensical gun control laws and who is at the top of that party.

And wasn't hollywood and the gaming industry going to be included in the joke of a gun violence discussion?

You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. If Obama proposes legislation, or issues executive orders, enforcing gun laws (the very ones you say he isn't enforcing) then it's "nonsensical".

If he doesn't enforce these "nonsensical" laws (which you argue he should), he is supporting murder.

There is simply no arguing with a zealot. Logic is not a part of your perspective. It really is amazing.

By the way, your idiotic Hitler analogy proved to be false. No executive order banning any weapons or ammunition was ordered. Michael's assessment was right after all.

Obama continues to be moderate (no surprise) on guns.

It doesn't have to be just the POTUS, it could be a political party, even the voters who choose them. Either way, we are losing our rights.

Which ones have we lost?

Being able to freely practice ones religion. No where in the Constitution does it say practicing ones religion must be relegated to private property. Of course this really only applies to Christianity, since schools in some areas are accomidating Muslim school children's ritual prayer needs with prayer rooms. Hinduism and others are allowed just for the sake of diversity.

I cannot own a real combat rifle, just one that look like one. I am not allowed to carry my registered concealed carry handgun on government property. In some municipalities, I'm not allowed to carry a non-concealed firearm. Thank God for Freedom Wyoming, crime rate zero.

Thousands of Americans are subject to illegal search and seizures each year. A simple traffic violation quickly turns into a strip down of an automobile. Sometimes even a cavity search, as was seen recently on youtube. Police sometimes forget to obtain a warrent for a search.

We are to vote for the VPOTUS on a separate ballot.

States are allowed to write their own laws that are outside the Constitutional boundries of the federal government. Ever heard of obama care?

I went to public school in NE. Christians prayed in school all the time. We used to pray before football games. There were morning prayers before classes started.

It is still that way.

You cannot own a real combat rifle unless you have the proper permits. There are ways of obtaining all manner of weaponry. Some private citizens have crazy and exotic weapons like anti-air craft guns. Your boy Scalia on the Supreme Court ensured that exotic weapons (like machine guns) will be illegal without proper permits.

It is true about illegal searches and seizures, much of which happen in places like Arizona and Alabama, which target US citizens who appear suspicious because they are brown. This is an example of why State power must be kept reigned in, as this is clearly a violation of the Constitution.

I am not sure how VPOTUS on a separate ballot is a reduction of your rights.

Of course states can write their own laws, per the 10th amendment to the Constitution. I have heard of Obamacare. Have you heard it was found (by a Republican swing vote) to be Constitutional in its entirety?

This list is a pretty weak set of arguments as to how your rights are being reduced. This is a past tense list. Meaning, the argument "we are losing our rights" makes no sense. Rather the argument ought to have been, "we have lost our rights".

In fact, only one of your complaints pertains to the current administration.

Sainted Liberal Queen Diane Feinstein has introduced a bill that will ban the sale and manufacture if 158 or so scary looking rifles and handguns. But we are "ALLOWED" 2258 rifles and shotguns for our Constitutional right of hunting and sport shooting.

Sending off my donation to the NRA, and letters to my representatives in congress and senate.

Also note, Diane Feinstein exempted government employees from this ban. Why do they deserve more firepower than me? Who's more important?

Feinstein is not going to be successful. Her proposal doesn't stand much of a chance in either house or senate.

Which ones have we lost?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 10:01 PM

This list is a pretty weak set of arguments as to how your rights are being reduced. This is a past tense list. Meaning, the argument "we are losing our rights" makes no sense. Rather the argument ought to have been, "we have lost our rights".

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 8:36 AM

You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

No, I don't think so.

I would agree with the argument that we have (past tense) lost some rights we previously had. In other words, CPB had a point if his argument was under previous presidents we have had our rights reduced.

That we "are losing" our rights (present participle) may be true as well. His list just didn't prove that.

CPB's claim was we "are losing", which I took to mean presently, or recently in the past, due to Obama's admin. Yet his list was comprised of examples that were (with one exception) in the distant past and not attributable to the Obama's admin.

Not both sides at all.

Maybe you are just a bully then?

You asked someone to tell you what happened in the past, then criticize them for speaking of past events. Which way do you want it? Also interesting that the person is wrong not based on what they said in response to your question but on how you think they should have answered your question.

Maybe the problem is just that you can't ask a good question. "Which ones have we lost?" rather than "Which ones are we losing?" Ask a bad question, get a bad answer.

Nice attempt at spin to show that once again you are never wrong, are you sure it's geography you are studying and not law?

I don't think I am a bully simply for disagreeing with, or being skeptical of CPB's list. Actually, I agreed with at least one point he made.

There is no spin, SW, and you don't need to be hostile. I simply must not be making myself very clear.

Let me try this:

CPB's claim: "We are losing our rights."

My question: "Which ones have we lost."

CPB's reply: A list of things he claims are rights that have been lost (past tense).

My reply: I am critical of the list, and also point out that the list does not support the claim that we ARE LOSING our rights.

In essence, he answered my question, but with debatable examples, and he failed to support his claim.

My question should have been: "Which rights are we losing", not "Which rights have we lost."

In any event, I disagree with CPB's list, and he still hasn't supported his present tense claim very well.

We have lost the right to opt out of healthcare coverage without paying a penalty. Is that a "losing" or is it not allowed because it too is past tense?

I would consider that a present tense "losing" example because actually the law isn't even in effect yet.

But, that argument would be stronger if the law wasn't also held up as Constitutional. No rights were violated according to the SCOTUS.

In any case, that is one possible example of "losing" a right (not "rights"). Are there other examples?

Women have gained the right to fight in combat.

So even if we count your "opting out" loss, that makes it 1 to 1, right?

Under Obama we have gained the right to carry guns on Amtrak trains (2 to 1) as well as in National Parks (3 to 1).

LGTB soldiers have the right to serve openly (4 to 1).

To me, the argument that we are losing our rights doesn't seem to hold much water. It appears that our rights are expanding.

I didn't realize you considered rights to be tokens that are traded in some type of game, in that case any conversation of the topic is pointless.

I don't think that actually. Forgive my tendency to want to quantify things, it is part of being in a field so heavily reliant on statistics.

I was merely trying to point out that the argument that our rights are currently contracting may not be that easy to support.

They are trying!:

"One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners." Seattle times.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html

From your article:

"I made a mistake," Kline said. "I frankly should have vetted this more closely."

That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven't read is common. Still, it's disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it's only an eight-page bill.

The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it's probably unconstitutional.

"I have to admit that shouldn't be in there," Murray said."

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html

Hmmm...so three problems Chunk. (1) No one's rights were reduced because the bill was never passed; (2) the sponsors of the bill, ignorant as they were, retracted their sponsorship once they learned of the provision regarding sheriffs inspecting homes, (3) this is unrelated to Obama or his administration, which continues to be decidedly pro-gun.

The attempt was there. In observing the comments of the bill's sponsor, it is more than clear he's ****** because he got caught. Thank God someone caught this before it was passed.

I am just glad that Obama plans to lift the ban on gun violence research. Leave it to the GOP to sanction ignorance. Thank Science that Obama caught this before more time was spent not basing our policies on data and research.

The sponsors of that illegal search scheme were fully aware

that provision was in there. Thery were hoping it would pass while no one was looking and in hopes no one would read it.

Talk about a "war on women", democrat pols in Colorado are trying, or have, taken away a vital tool, a gun, in self defense for women against rape on college campus. The training required to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit would stop the "wild west" atmosphere democrats fear. Democrat media leader Bob Beckel even claims rape doesn't exist on colleges.

What is a democrat pol? And how exactly does a pol try to have guns taken away?

*politician.

That is trumped up nonsense. Nobody is suggesting that guns should be taken away so that women cannot defend themselves. Many students, many of whom are women, want the ban.

Also, there is no "wild west". College campuses are quite safe generally speaking. There is no need for a bunch of 18 and 19 year-olds to be packin' in class.

Tell that to the defenseless students of Virginia Tech.

How many students go to school safely every day on college campuses?

Answer: 21.6 million/per day.

There have been 1687 school days (including summer school) since April 17, 2007. In that time, approx. 45 people have been injured or killed on college campuses with guns. That means that since Va Tech, roughly 45 times out of 3,643,920,000,000,000 (45 out of 3.6 quadrillion times) students have safely attended class without needing a gun.

So there is a .000001 chance you will need a gun on a college campus.

Let me guess, because there have been plane crashes you think air travel is dangerous too.

We are dealing with actual lives at risk. A murder affects a family for generations. A personal history, ended before it can be told. We all take risks the very moment we wake up each morning.

We mitigate those risks by counter-measures that put the odds in our favors. We eat heathy foods and exercise to balance the odds of heart disease and diabetes. We don't smoke or drink excessively to counter cancer. We wear seat belt to increase our odds of surviving car wrecks.

We complete firearms safety and tactical training to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit to protect ourselves, our family, and our neighbors, and anyone who ever and where ever they are. We teach our children to be competant with a firearm so they may do the same.

Why do you, and the left wing of the political spectrurm, so vehemantly hate this right?

CPB,

I OWN GUNS. My Savage Sporter and Remmy 11-87 sit about 15 feet away. My father has a nice Cabela's gun safe so my Ak-47 is locked safely away there. I don't hate any of our rights. But I am not a freak-zealot either.

Science and reason and statistics govern my decisions.

So why do you oppose the fundamental right to defend one self? Does science and reason strip away freedom?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/shock-report-veterans-receive-letters-fr...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/21/illinois-state-senator-pushes-anti-anonymity-b...

Benevolus,

The real big question is, WHY DO YOU OWN A AK-47?

I don't oppose the fundamental right to defend one's self. Quite the opposite.

To answer your question, not being shot by an 18 year old college student who got a bad grade on an exam and is packing a 9-mili in her backpack seems an awful lot like freedom to me.

"WHY DO YOU OWN A AK-47?"

Dad bought it for me. I don't keep in my apartment. It is fun to shoot, and the ammo is cheap, but the shotty is what any smart person would use for home defense anyway.

Science and reason just went out the window! Hypocrisy rules your day. You vehemently oppose the legalpossession of semi-automatic rifles by law abiding citizen, but own one yourself. Hypocrite indeed!

"Finally, we can agree on something! The seemingly imminent assault weapons ban doesn't make much sense....

The point is, people that want to commit mass murder seem to find a way with or without assault rifles. In this case, banning assault weapons does not adequately address the real problems that underlie these shootings: abuse, neglect, misdiagnosis/mistreatment/untreated instances of mental health disorders, unsecured weapons/irresponsible gun owners, etc."

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 1:48 PM

I don't vehemently oppose the possession of semi-automatic rifles. I am not convinced that banning them will do much to stop gun violence.

I am also not so stupid as to actually believe that our gun rights have been infringed in anyway by Obama. THAT I do vehemently disagree with.

Do you disagree that our right to self defense is being stripped away by democrats in the senate? Democrats in the house? Democrats in state governments? Democrats at the city level? And what party does the POTUS belong to?

One more, just for you Benevolus.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/23/is-oregon-writing-the-worst-gun-law-evah/

No, I do not agree. SOME democrats are clamoring for an assault weapons ban, not all. I disagree with the ones who are. But even if assault weapons are banned, a) I still get to keep mine, b) I don't use it for home defense anyway.

In other words, in the extremely improbable event that I would ever need to violently defend myself, my ability to do so is exactly the same, with or without a ban.

Regarding Obama, he did say he would support an assault weapons ban, but he said this knowing full-well that any such ban will inevitably end up in the legislative scrap heap. His actions speak louder than his playing to his base. He has still done more to expand gun rights than restrict them. Even his directives post Sandy Hook did little more than protected gun owner's rights and strengthen existing laws. He had the opportunity, given the climate of frustration with assault weapons at the time, to issue (and get away with) much more severe gun restrictions. He didn't.

No rights have been violated, CPB. If legislation is passed that reduces our rights unconstitutionally, I expect the courts to determine this to be the case, and to overturn the legislation. That's how the system works.

Just for you, CPB...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-vio...

You'd better make better arguments.

Your support of firearm registration, search and seizures suggest otherwise.

Huh?

It has happened, and they're trying again;

http://www.infowars.com/city-wants-power-to-disarm-individuals-during-crisis/

I don't get it, the ordinance says that police can disarm "unruly" people. Police already have that power...disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, etc.

This is not giving police in Guntersville and more power than they already have.

Certainly not the case in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, just ask the citizens who were violated. And define "unruly", could that definition include the non-complient?

Of course it does.

I was not aware of any citizens having their guns stripped away in Katrina. Quite the opposite, I recall that there was quite a lot of gun violence.

I don't understand what you mean by "non-compliment"?

The bottom line, CPB, is you live in a democracy wherein elected officials act on behalf of their constituents. Two things to bear in mind: 1) if the citizens do not like the actions of their leaders, their recourse is to vote someone into office who will undo the actions of their previous representatives; 2) if leaders acting on behalf of their constituents make laws that violate a person or group's Constitutional rights, that matter gets settled in the court system.

In the case of gun rights, you don't have to look any further than Columbia v Heller to see that I am right.

Thank God we have a constitution respecting supreme court.

If you studied the situaton, mostly law abiding had their legally owned weapons confiscated, not the weapons possessed illegally by criminals who were responsible for the criminal activity in the Katrina event. This is also the case today with the gun control debate.

Can you put up a link demonstrating that gun owners had their weapons confiscated? Did they get them back?

You are describing ONE scenario and applying it to the entire nation, ignoring the fact that cities can pass ordinances that do not impact other cities, States can pass laws that do not impact other States. The gun control debate at the Federal level is the only sweeping legislation that impacts everyone, and Obama's admin has not argued for the confiscation of weapons during disasters as far as I have seen. So again, source please.

"Thank God we have a constitution respecting supreme court."

That is right. I am glad we can agree. Because of the SCOTUS abortions are legal, undocumented children have a constitutional right to education, schools have to give individualized instruction for ELLs (no English only laws for schools), and most legal scholars predict that gays and lesbians will have equal rights to marriage based on the decision in the upcoming Windsor case.

Thank Reason for the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

Well said grandmajo!

I see New York governer coumo is going to try to exempt hollywood from it's unconstitutional gun restriction so that violent movies can be filmed there. What a hypocrit! Won't be doing any business with new york anymore.

Wish I could sleep.

No response, Chunk? Shall I assume that you are happy with all the SCOTUS decisions then, since you thank god for its existence?

Benevolus,

Are we to assume you are happy with all SCOTUS decisions then, since you thank reason for its existence?

SW,

I am certain that you will assume whatever you want without any of my input, but to answer, no, not all decisions make me happy. But many more SCOTUS decisions please me than don't, so in total, my opinion is that we are much better off with than without the SCOTUS.

No, you shall not assume I approve of all SCOTUS decisions. Usually when they rule in favor of the government over US citizens, I think they're wrong.

CPB,

The SCOTUS doesn't rule in favor of citizens or government, it interprets the Constitutionality of laws. So I am not sure what you are talking about. Can you give a couple of examples of the SCOTUS "ruling in favor of government"?

Also, if we take your (creative) perspective about the role of the SCOTUS, aren't cases like Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas in favor of citizens, and isn't Citizens United v Federal Election Commission against citizens?

Loose lips!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/11/Schakowsky-Assault-Weapons-Ba...

Another Concealed Carry Weapon success:

http://fox6now.com/2013/03/12/marine-with-concealed-carry-permit-stops-man-from-...

Home defense success:

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2013/04/04/grandmother-of-10-holds-burglar-at-gunpoi...