First time visitor? Learn more.

The Next Question

by Flyovercountry ( 133 Comments › )
Filed under Politics at January 17th, 2013 - 11:00 am
Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The genius of our Constitution was that the people who worked out the details of our founding document and proposed it to a fledgling nation, not quite two decades old, realized that they were not perfect. The also realized that there would never be that perfect angel born, in whom we should place the entirety of our trust. They also gave us the ability to make changes to what they had done. To date, there have been 27 such changes officially enacted. With the powers of governing separated, and the three co-equal branches of government being given authority to act as a check and balance for the other two, Our founding fathers set up a system that was designed to limit the authority given to the government, that they would be forever bound by the consent of the people governed, and the minority protected against infringements by a majority upon their right to be secure in their lives, homes, effects, papers, and property.

Our founding law indeed is stronger than any one person who may win elective office, or even the takeover of an entire political party that would seek to replace that document with their own form of centralized control. We have seen previously in our history as a matter of fact, those who would try, and in the end the Constitution has survived, and the usurpations of would be tyrants have ended up occupying the ash heap of history. Fortunately, our founding fathers had the good sense to make those changes difficult to enact. Gridlock, ladies and gentlemen is a good thing indeed. Those people who proposed the Constitution to us realized that it has, for all of man kind’s history, been possible to whip up the emotions of people into temporarily making bad decisions on a collective scale. Crises create mobs, and mobs can be convinced of doing terrible things.

There is a reason why we have been flying from one crisis to another, non stop for the past four years. Given the opportunity to cool down, people would never go for the whole sale changes to our laws that are being foisted upon us. Obamacare would never have passed in Congress in 2009, were it not for the economic crisis, almost entirely manufactured by previous bad government policy by the way. Dodd Frank, Sarbanes Oxley, Tarp, Stimulus, Quantitative Easing, none of it would have happened without people being frightened into allowing the government to do basically anything that it wished to do.

No way the citizens of the United States allow our President to rule via executive fiat for those liberty encroaching dreams from his father, were they not distracted, and indeed frightened, constantly with the crisis du jour. Piece by piece, we have had our basic freedoms striped away, and indeed even had half of our numbers cheer it on, all under the guise of fairness and caring for the less capable, or my personal favorite, “it’s for the children.”

One of the problems with allowing huge swaths of unchecked power to any individual of course is the title question of this essay. What happens next? Let’s pretend for a moment that Barack Obama is everything that he has been advertised to be. Let us further pretend that the 22nd Amendment gets repealed, because darn it, we need this man to be our President for life. Do we give the same trust to our next President for life after Barack? There will always be a future. As much as you liberals love Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, You hated Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Are you in favor of entrusting the same levels of authority to future Presidents more in their mold, as you are giving to our current President?

There is however a silver lining in all of this. To date, these people have not managed a single Amendment to our Constitution. All of the current assaults upon or Constitution are temporary, and can be undone. It will not be easy, and in fact has never happened, but the possibility is there. The even better news is that it takes about 75% support of the American People in order to make any changes to our Constitution. That is something that our current Demagogue in Chief does not have, and more importantly is not anywhere close to having.

All of the laws enacted by the current group of Marxists can be voted out in the same manner in which they were voted in. The executive orders can be countermanded with the same single stroke of a pen with which they were put into place. On January 21, 2017, Barack Obama will no longer be our President, but the Constitution of the United States, with its current 27 Amendments, and no more, will still be the ultimate law of our Republic. Barack Obama’s attempt to destroy our nation will have failed, and history will begin its judgement of the Obama Presidency.

Today, Barack Obama surrounded himself with children and made the ultimate demagogic appeal in his announcement of 23 executive orders that he will unilaterally use to abridge our Second Amendment rights. At least two states have already enacted laws to incarcerate any federal officials who attempt to enforce those orders within the borders of their respective states. The legality of these measures, which bypassed the Legislative Branch, in direct contrast to the laws of our land will be argued probably all the way to the Supreme Court. Before the inevitable challenges make it that far however, the offending rules will probably be signed out of existence just as unilaterally.

America survived other dolts in the past, and our Constitution will survive Barack Obama as well. If one lesson has been taught to us in spades over the past four years, it is that elections have consequences. If you stayed home as a protest this November past, your share of the blame is twice as much as the dopes who voted this group in. Either way, this President and his damage will not last. History will judge him rather unkindly, and our Constitution will survive. Americans you see are capable of getting bored, and boredom with the current state of constant crisis is going to happen. When you boil down Obama’s rap, crisis utilization is really his only political tool.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

133 Responses to “The Next Question”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | January 17, 2013 11:13 am

    The Left wants to make Obama President for life.


  2. theoutsider
    2 | January 17, 2013 11:16 am

    @ Rodan:
    BS, Rodan


  3. 3 | January 17, 2013 11:17 am

    The more I thought about those ridiculous 23 Executive Orders yesterday, you come to the realization that there is nothing there that would have stopped Newtown. Or Aurora, probably. And when these are implemented, of course, we all know that “gun violence” (the new term -- you know like “global warming” became “climate change”) isn’t stopped, poor little Odumbo will go again in front of the American people, surrounded by children, and say “but this is all I can do -- I don’t have the power -- it’s the evil Republicans and the NRA that are keeping us from enacting serious measures to curb gun violence…..if I only had the POWER….”

    If he’s going to do a fan dance, the least he could do is hire the ghost of Sally Rand.


  4. 4 | January 17, 2013 11:17 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    BS, Rodan

    Please, you would support it. He’s your God-King who can not be questioned.


  5. 5 | January 17, 2013 11:18 am

    @ Rodan:

    Yes they do, but they do not have anywhere near the support necessary to repeal the 22nd Amendment. That maneuver would cause secession amongst the various states, if attempted. We will be done with him January 21st, 2017. Let the healing begin.


  6. 6 | January 17, 2013 11:19 am

    @ Flyovercountry:

    We will be done with him January 21st, 2017. Let the healing begin.

    I wish I shared your optimism, but he will be followed by a Democrat. I think either Deval Patrick or Martin O’Malley will be the next President. I don’t think the GOP will get the White House until 2020 or 2024.


  7. 7 | January 17, 2013 11:20 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    It was all huff and puff. It was all for show.


  8. 8 | January 17, 2013 11:22 am

    @ Rodan:

    Everything this clown does is for show.


  9. heysoos
    9 | January 17, 2013 11:22 am

    nice reminder that the liberal chokehold can be undone….what a legacy eh?…reverse Obamacare and dump all his EO’s….it’s the money taxed, spent and lost that will have to be kissed goodbye, and there again, that amounts to thievery…he’s in deep shit and doesn’t seem to know it, but if it all goes bad and people are killed, it’s will be because of his policies…just wait until Obamacare blows up entirely


  10. RIX
    10 | January 17, 2013 11:24 am

    Obama demonstrated his real feelings in a 2001 NPR interview.
    He bashed the Constitution for having negative rights and not
    guaranteeing economic justice.
    He demonstrates a real misunderstanding of the purpose of the
    document.


  11. 11 | January 17, 2013 11:24 am

    If you stayed home as a protest this November past, your share of the blame is twice as much as the dopes who voted this group in.

    Agree with this 100%!


  12. heysoos
    12 | January 17, 2013 11:25 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    BS, Rodan

    RIX wrote:

    Obama demonstrated his real feelings in a 2001 NPR interview.
    He bashed the Constitution for having negative rights and not
    guaranteeing economic justice.
    He demonstrates a real misunderstanding of the purpose of the
    document.

    BO is either an idiot or malicious…probably both


  13. buzzsawmonkey
    13 | January 17, 2013 11:28 am

    RIX wrote:

    Obama demonstrated his real feelings in a 2001 NPR interview.
    He bashed the Constitution for having negative rights and not
    guaranteeing economic justice.
    He demonstrates a real misunderstanding of the purpose of the
    document.

    I would argue that he is not demonstrating “misunderstanding,” but opposition to the Constitution and its purpose—and he gambles (so far, successfully) on popular ignorance and people’s willingness to be bribed with “free” stuff to get away with it.


  14. coldwarrior
    14 | January 17, 2013 11:29 am

    @ heysoos:

    @ RIX:

    this is what happens when a lazy, shiftless racial hire is elevated beyond his abilities and beyond his station.

    we didnt even get to see his resume!


  15. 15 | January 17, 2013 11:30 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Well, he was planning to “fundamentally transform America.” I should think the first thing he’d want to do is throw out the owner’s manual.


  16. heysoos
    16 | January 17, 2013 11:31 am

    @ coldwarrior:
    and what does it say about his sycophant supporters?…good grief
    the OphonePOTUS


  17. coldwarrior
    17 | January 17, 2013 11:31 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Well, he was planning to “fundamentally transform America.” I should think the first thing he’d want to do is throw out the owner’s manual.

    he has, at least, been honest about his intent.


  18. 18 | January 17, 2013 11:32 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Everything this clown does is for show.

    But the people love him as a god.


  19. 19 | January 17, 2013 11:32 am

    @ coldwarrior:

    I see the outsider ran away when I posted the link of Obama supporters with Communist flag.


  20. coldwarrior
    20 | January 17, 2013 11:32 am

    heysoos wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    and what does it say about his sycophant supporters?…good grief
    the OphonePOTUS

    i’d rather not elucidate on that topic at this time. i would have to ban myself.


  21. coldwarrior
    21 | January 17, 2013 11:33 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    I see the outsider ran away when I posted the link of Obama supporters with Communist flag.

    if you force feed facts to trolls, they cry.

    why are you so mean to trolls?


  22. heysoos
    22 | January 17, 2013 11:34 am

    @ Rodan:
    I try not to be too judgmental, but that guy is a whiner and refuses to contribute at all…what’s his point?


  23. AZfederalist
    23 | January 17, 2013 11:34 am

    Good piece, I like the optimism. My concern is that the next object to be attacked will be the very Constitution itself. The NYT has already floated this in the past several weeks, deriding our attachment to the Constitution as clinging to scripture. Now, if this kind of thing were to occur, then you will definitely see a split in the country, with states uniting behind the constitution as supreme law of the land and blue states leaving the union to pursue their feel-good follow the cult leader brand of governance. Note that it really will be the states that reject the constitution who are going to be committing rebellion, even if Washington,D.C. Is physically in the same location as those states.


  24. lobo91
    24 | January 17, 2013 11:34 am

    @ Rodan:

    I don’t think the GOP will get the White House until 2020 or 2024.

    If that happens, it won’t matter who’s in charge. The country we know won’t exist anymore.


  25. 25 | January 17, 2013 11:35 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    you come to the realization that there is nothing there that would have stopped Newtown

    Nothing would have stopped it, but an armed teacher in the classroom would have saved lives. The Left always say “If it saves on elife” losing our freedom to gun control is worth it, but they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that guns actually do save lives.


  26. 26 | January 17, 2013 11:35 am

    heysoos wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    I try not to be too judgmental, but that guy is a whiner and refuses to contribute at all…what’s his point?

    He just repeats OFA talking points. That’s all.


  27. coldwarrior
    27 | January 17, 2013 11:35 am

    narcissist racial hire in chief:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is featuring eight Americans as “citizen co-chairs” of his inauguration, a new role created to highlight his first-term accomplishments with examples of lives that have either been improved by his actions or inspired his presidency.

    Inaugural planners say the honorees include a woman with a brain tumor who no longer is denied health care for a pre-existing condition; an autoworker who got her job back after the General Motors bailout; and a gay pilot-in-training kicked out of the Air Force before the president repealed the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.


  28. buzzsawmonkey
    28 | January 17, 2013 11:36 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    BTW, CG—did you see yesterday’s Ballad?


  29. RIX
    29 | January 17, 2013 11:36 am

    @ heysoos:
    I vote both.


  30. coldwarrior
    30 | January 17, 2013 11:37 am

    i think i will be shiftless and lazy and take a nap.

    bbl!


  31. 31 | January 17, 2013 11:37 am

    @ heysoos:

    LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!


  32. RIX
    32 | January 17, 2013 11:38 am

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ heysoos:

    @ RIX:

    this is what happens when a lazy, shiftless racial hire is elevated beyond his abilities and beyond his station.

    we didnt even get to see his resume!

    During the first campaign Moochele made the presidency sound
    like a minority set-aside.


  33. The Osprey
    33 | January 17, 2013 11:38 am

    What the hell happened to the Gates of Vienna blog? Did google take them down?


  34. 34 | January 17, 2013 11:38 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    And one of the Executive Orders was “appoint an
    ATF Director.” Hey dummy -- you can do that WITHOUT an Executive Order! It looked like “compose 23 strongly worded letters” to me.


  35. heysoos
    35 | January 17, 2013 11:40 am

    @ Carolina Girl:
    it irritates me that he doesn’t even try to be friendly


  36. 36 | January 17, 2013 11:40 am

    @ lobo91:

    Let’s see what happens.


  37. 37 | January 17, 2013 11:40 am

    The Osprey wrote:

    What the hell happened to the Gates of Vienna blog? Did google take them down?

    Don’t know.


  38. lobo91
    38 | January 17, 2013 11:41 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    And one of the Executive Orders was “appoint an
    ATF Director.” Hey dummy — you can do that WITHOUT an Executive Order! It looked like “compose 23 strongly worded letters” to me.

    He could have sent that nomination to the Senate anytime he wanted to. The reason he hasn’t done so is that he knows the confirmation hearings will turn into a discussion of Fast & Furious.


  39. lobo91
    39 | January 17, 2013 11:42 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    Let’s see what happens.

    You think we’ll be able to survive $30 trillion in debt?

    That’s what we’ll be looking at if your prediction comes true.


  40. heysoos
    40 | January 17, 2013 11:43 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    And one of the Executive Orders was “appoint an
    ATF Director.” Hey dummy — you can do that WITHOUT an Executive Order! It looked like “compose 23 strongly worded letters” to me.

    I just laughed…all that hoopla for that steaming pile of nonsense?…that’s fine tho, but using the kids regarding guns, murder and mayhem shows a deep insecurity


  41. heysoos
    41 | January 17, 2013 11:44 am

    @ lobo91:
    good point, I hadn’t thought of that


  42. 42 | January 17, 2013 11:45 am

    @ The Osprey:

    Apparently.


  43. The Osprey
    43 | January 17, 2013 11:46 am

    Rodan wrote:

    The Osprey wrote:
    What the hell happened to the Gates of Vienna blog? Did google take them down?

    Don’t know.

    It really disturbs me when an anti-jihad blog goes off line.


  44. buzzsawmonkey
    44 | January 17, 2013 11:46 am

    Rodan wrote:

    The Left wants to make Obama President for life.

    Not unless they use a Boeing 787 for Air Force One. He can call it the “Dreamliner from My Father.”


  45. theoutsider
    45 | January 17, 2013 11:47 am

    @ Rodan:
    Since when?


  46. lobo91
    46 | January 17, 2013 11:47 am

    heysoos wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    good point, I hadn’t thought of that

    The guy he’s going to nominate is currently serving as acting director, so nothing’s really going to change. I guess he’ll have to order new business cards, but that’s about it.

    He’s a long-time associate of Eric Holder. And of course he’s black, which means anyone who tries to ask him any questions will be branded as a racist.


  47. The Osprey
    47 | January 17, 2013 11:48 am

    mskelly wrote:

    @ The Osprey:
    Apparently.

    Thanks for the info. Good to hear they are fighting back.
    I wonder what Google’s reason for pulling the plug on them is.
    I think they need to move to a different blogging platform. They’ve had these issues with Google Blogspot before.


  48. 48 | January 17, 2013 11:48 am

    @ lobo91:

    You think we’ll be able to survive $30 trillion in debt?

    Probably not, but it is what it is. I don’t like it but it’s reality. All we can do is take care of ourselves and focus on our faith. There will be no political salvation.


  49. heysoos
    49 | January 17, 2013 11:49 am

    @ lobo91:
    thanks for the heads up…there is alot I don’t pay much attention to


  50. 50 | January 17, 2013 11:49 am

    @ The Osprey:

    It really disturbs me when an anti-jihad blog goes off line.

    It bothers me too. The Islamists are winning thanks to our corrupt elites.


  51. 51 | January 17, 2013 11:51 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Since when?

    Check the last thread. I provided links to Obama supporters with Communist flags. You never responded.

    But here’s a reminder:

    http://expreacherman.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/obama-commie-flag.jpg?w=500

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_K5_orMQRY


  52. lobo91
    52 | January 17, 2013 11:53 am

    @ The Osprey:

    Google has a long history of caving in to demands from totalitarians.


  53. buzzsawmonkey
    53 | January 17, 2013 11:54 am

    Rodan wrote:

    Obama supporters with Communist flags.

    You mean like Anita Dunn and Van Jones?


  54. 54 | January 17, 2013 11:54 am

    @ Carolina Girl:
    Yeah, he just needs to appoint somebody who can get through the Senate. He has refused to do that his entire term of office. No one is stopping him but himself.


  55. 55 | January 17, 2013 11:55 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Let’s not forget the Che pictures in Obama campaign offices.

    The Outsider is emailing OFA to get the talking point response, so let’s cut him some slack.


  56. heysoos
    56 | January 17, 2013 11:56 am

    @ Rodan:
    no


  57. lobo91
    57 | January 17, 2013 11:59 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    I’m mostly worried about what looks like a plan to include the White House Enemies List in the NICS database.


  58. RIX
    58 | January 17, 2013 12:02 pm

    Just a thought. There have been accusations that people
    think that Obama is not really culturally American.
    I don’t think that he is.
    He spent his formative years away from the America Mainland ,
    in Hawaii & Indonesia. Hawaii is great , but it’s not Kansas.
    He was heavily influenced by Marxists and Islamists.
    To tell us what he really thinks of us, four years ago speaking
    to a group of drooling sycophants he rapped Americans for
    not speaking a foreign language.
    He snarked , “‘just saying merci beaucoup is not speaking a
    foreign language.
    Turns out that he speaks no foreign language with the exception
    of some Arabic terms.


  59. heysoos
    59 | January 17, 2013 12:05 pm

    @ lobo91:
    I’m reading some pulp…The List by Brad Thor…data bases freak me out…the means to keep track of nearly everything you do is astonishing


  60. RIX
    60 | January 17, 2013 12:07 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Let’s not forget the Che pictures in Obama campaign offices.
    The Outsider is emailing OFA to get the talking point response, so let’s cut him some slack.

    How about the Mao Christmas tree ornament on the Obama tree?
    Nothing says Christmas like Mao Tse Tung!


  61. lobo91
    61 | January 17, 2013 12:14 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    I’m reading some pulp…The List by Brad Thor…data bases freak me out…the means to keep track of nearly everything you do is astonishing

    The reality is that the ability to collect data has far outstripped the ability to analyze it. There’s so much data out there that it’s nearly impossible to separate the important stuff from the garbage.

    I’m more worried about their ability to insert bogus data into the system, frankly.


  62. 62 | January 17, 2013 12:14 pm

    @ Rodan:

    You’ve been right more often than I have recently. I just hope you’re wrong this time. But as Sideshow Bob said on the Simpsons, you can’t keep the Republicans out of the White House forever, I’ll be back.


  63. unclassifiable
    63 | January 17, 2013 12:20 pm

    Dayam flyovercountry you know how to throw down the blog post.

    Well done!


  64. AZfederalist
    64 | January 17, 2013 12:21 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ The Osprey:

    Google has a long history of caving in to demands from totalitarians.

    Pretty much because the google founders are all very strong statists, they are very much into cronyism and elitist control of the ignorant masses.


  65. lobo91
    65 | January 17, 2013 12:21 pm

    NRA: Obama Wants “War” With Us So We’re Preparing For “Battle”…

    In an interview with ABC News this evening, NRA President David Keene said the gun-rights lobby is aggressively preparing for “battle” with the White House and Congress over President Obama’s sweeping new proposals to curb gun violence.

    Keene criticized Obama’s announcement today, surrounded by four children from around the country, for “using kids to advance an ideological agenda.” And he expressed cautious confidence that few of the legislative measures would ultimately pass.

    “It’s going to be very tough for the president to accomplish some of these things, but that doesn’t mean he can’t do it if he really turns it on,” Keene told ABC.

    “All bets are off when a president really wants to go to war with you,” he said. “We’re gonna be there and we’re gonna fight it.”


  66. 66 | January 17, 2013 12:23 pm

    @ lobo91:

    I’m glad to see it. They really didn’t do that to Clinton when he did the original AWB. The mood of the country has changed on this issue since then, though, and not in a way that favors Obama.


  67. lobo91
    67 | January 17, 2013 12:25 pm

    Someone let theoutsider know that Stephanie Cutter is trying to reach him:

    Cutter: Obama Will Activate Campaign Apparatus To Take On The NRA…

    STEPHANIE CUTTER: President Obama provides the leadership here, and he said the American people have to speak up and make their voices heard in this debate. Just like the NRA is doing with there membership. And President Obama’s network across this country, grassroots individuals, who organize, volunteered with their time to get the president reelected are much more powerful than the NRA lobby.

    And I think that you can expect to see that network activated, very soon. And for good reason. We need to pass commonsense legislation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who shouldn’t be carrying guns. That’s the commonsense nature of this.


  68. 68 | January 17, 2013 12:26 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    There’s so much data out there that it’s nearly impossible to separate the important stuff from the garbage.

    Yup, it’s been that way now for almost 2 decades. Having taken the 9 month long Cisco Network Administrators course (Back in 98-9) I learned that

    a) their is no such thing as anonymity on the internet, it’s utterly impossible because of how data packets are routed.

    b) The appearance of anonymity exists because of the level of background noise.

    Any hacker worth his salt knows that his anonymity is solely a function of his activity profile. In other words, you are only anonymous up to and until someone who knows how to trace packet data decides to go looking specifically for you. If the packet tracer is good, there is no where you can hide.

    The important point here being, the sheer volume of constantly accumulating new data creates a level of background noise that is capable of hiding anything that is not specifically being searched for. In other words, you have to know exactly what you are looking for or the volume of data constantly being added makes it impossible to find anything.

    I’m more worried about their ability to insert bogus data into the system, frankly.

    Ya, that is one hell of a problem, but it likewise cuts both ways. Not only can governmental agencies insert massive amounts of false or misleading data into the system, but so can anyone else who understands how the system works. That is one of the Achilles heels of the system.


  69. Fritz Katz
    69 | January 17, 2013 12:27 pm

    The libertarian Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey, just said Obamacare is fascism on NPR today:

    “Technically speaking, it’s more like fascism. Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. In fascism, the government doesn’t own the means of production, but they do control it — and that’s what’s happening with our health care programs and these reforms.”

    And he had the cojones to say it on the LLLs (Lying Lunatic Liberals) own propaganda outlet so millions of the whiney shits heard it in their Volvos & Priuses while they commute to their $120K+/year government jobs.

    The entire blogosphere of the millions of LLLs who control our society have exploded with extreme hissy-fits over the remark.

    Perhaps our own “The Outsider” might care to weigh-in on the subject since he’s too busy avoiding the truth about Obama supporters waiving their communist flags.


  70. 70 | January 17, 2013 12:29 pm

    @ lobo91:

    They always want to “keep guns out of the hands of criminals” rather than “keep criminals off the streets”. It is indicative of their mindset that they always go for this. They aren’t concernd abou tthe crime. They are concerned about the gun. Somebody beaten to death with a hammer doesn’t present a political oppertunity for them, so they simply don’t count.


  71. unclassifiable
    71 | January 17, 2013 12:31 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Another end run on public information.

    Obama is going to presume that he can communicate with his anti-NRA campaign in private and I call BS.

    He was dumb to make this public information and there should be a flood of FOIA request forcing him to outline how all communications in this effort will be available to the public because he is carrying out this action as a public official.

    Let me further point out that we have the right of free association in this country. This man as President under oath to obey and carry out the laws of the United States is trying nothing less than to break up this association and that action is illegal.


  72. 72 | January 17, 2013 12:33 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    They always want to “keep guns out of the hands of criminals” rather than “keep criminals off the streets”. It is indicative of their mindset that they always go for this. They aren’t concernd abou tthe crime. They are concerned about the gun. Somebody beaten to death with a hammer doesn’t present a political oppertunity for them, so they simply don’t count.

    Were we following the intended direction of the founding fathers keeping criminals off the streets would not be a problem. In the opinion of our highly esteemed founding fathers, “Men are far less inclined towards criminal activity when the inevitable results of such activity are to be shot in the act of committing a crime”.


  73. citizen_q
    73 | January 17, 2013 12:36 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    We need to pass commonsense legislation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who shouldn’t be carrying guns. That’s the commonsense nature of this.

    My reading between the lines is that they will find clever ways to make criminals of us all.


  74. lobo91
    74 | January 17, 2013 12:37 pm

    @ unclassifiable:

    He was dumb to make this public information and there should be a flood of FOIA request forcing him to outline how all communications in this effort will be available to the public because he is carrying out this action as a public official.

    The problem with FOIA requests is that this administration has gone to extraordinary (and illegal) lengths to hide its communications in order to foil such requests.

    They routinely use commercial webmail accounts to discuss things they don’t want to become public, which is illegal. There’s also reportedly an entirely separate White House email system--paid for with tax dollars--that they use for the same purpose.


  75. buzzsawmonkey
    75 | January 17, 2013 12:38 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    hey always want to “keep guns out of the hands of criminals” rather than “keep criminals off the streets”. It is indicative of their mindset that they always go for this. They aren’t concernd abou tthe crime.

    Arrested criminals are “political prisoners” who must be freed as rapidly as possible.

    The Left lobbied to abolish the death penalty as “cruel and unusual,” and made it “unusual” by litigating so much that a death-penalty conviction is a near-assurance that you will die of old age in prison. “Life in prison is punishment enough,” they said, “The death penalty should be abolished.”

    Well, the death penalty largely has been abolished, and is rarely carried out. So, guess what? The Left is now lobbying against life imprisonment as “cruel and unusual punishment.”

    They are also lobbying for “proportional imprisonment.” If there are more people of a certain race in prison than of another race, that must be due, not to more people of a particular background committing crimes, but “racist” laws and “racist” enforcement. There have actually been initiatives that argued on behalf of releasing imprisoned criminals until the prison population is “racially proportional” to the larger society.


  76. AZfederalist
    76 | January 17, 2013 12:38 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ lobo91:

    I’m glad to see it. They really didn’t do that to Clinton when he did the original AWB. The mood of the country has changed on this issue since then, though, and not in a way that favors Obama.

    What really needs to be hammered home here is that these crimes all occurred in “gun free” zones. People, especially low information voters, need to come away with the understanding that gun free zones mean the only people with guns in those places were the perpetrators of those atrocities.

    We have the chance for a real win here if enough people can be shown that gun free zones really mean “unarmed victim” zones. Should be an easy sell, the locations of the attacks and the high crime rate in cities with the strongest anti-gun laws. Of course that would require an opposition party with a spine a huevos, something not in evidence in Boehner or McConnell and the rest of the GOP establishment.


  77. lobo91
    77 | January 17, 2013 12:40 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    Ya, that is one hell of a problem, but it likewise cuts both ways. Not only can governmental agencies insert massive amounts of false or misleading data into the system, but so can anyone else who understands how the system works. That is one of the Achilles heels of the system.

    My point is that when you program the system and know what it keys on, you have the ability to gin up bogus data that is specifically designed to incriminate your enemies.

    And since most of these systems are secret, there’s no right to due process involved. You can’t effectively defend yourself against their accusations, because they won’t tell you why you’ve been flagged.


  78. buzzsawmonkey
    78 | January 17, 2013 12:41 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    We need to pass commonsense legislation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who shouldn’t be carrying guns. That’s the commonsense nature of this.

    The appeals to “common sense” are evidence that they’ve got no facts whatever on their side. But demagogically, it is effective with people who have so little common sense that they voted to re-elect Obama, because it flatters their belief that they have some.


  79. heysoos
    79 | January 17, 2013 12:42 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    They always want to “keep guns out of the hands of criminals” rather than “keep criminals off the streets”. It is indicative of their mindset that they always go for this. They aren’t concernd abou tthe crime. They are concerned about the gun. Somebody beaten to death with a hammer doesn’t present a political oppertunity for them, so they simply don’t count.

    now is the perfect time for the GOP to unleash the hounds and flat out mock any gun law that cannot be proven to reduce murder…there is so much irrational crap spewing, just pick em off one by one…my favorite is trying to define assault weapon and their deadly pistol grips…whatever the GOP is not pushing back, not pre-emptive, not proactive enough…gotta get in their face


  80. 80 | January 17, 2013 12:42 pm

    citizen_q wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:
    We need to pass commonsense legislation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who shouldn’t be carrying guns. That’s the commonsense nature of this.
    My reading between the lines is that they will find clever ways to make criminals of us all.

    My reading of both the US Constitution and the Founding Fathers tells me this…

    George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.” (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
    Chronicle.)

    Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (T. Jefferson papers,
    334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

    Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
    inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
    better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
    may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
    Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

    Read carefully what those men had to say. If you are under arrest, in jail or prison, then you should not be armed, but baring that every FREE man has the right to be armed.


  81. lobo91
    81 | January 17, 2013 12:45 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Jay Carney actually managed to use “common sense” twice in one sentence the other day.


  82. 82 | January 17, 2013 12:47 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Jay Carney actually managed to use “common sense” twice in one sentence the other day.

    Heh heh heh, to quote Inigo Montoya: You (Jay Carney) Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means… :twisted:


  83. buzzsawmonkey
    83 | January 17, 2013 12:47 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    Jay Carney actually managed to use “common sense” twice in one sentence the other day.

    It is clearly going to be a repeat talking-point, the way Obama kept repeating “millionaires and billionaires” and “fair share.”

    Every one here should start formulating in their own minds how to respond to the forthcoming blizzard invocations of “common sense.”


  84. heysoos
    84 | January 17, 2013 12:47 pm

    Panetta should be shredded, ripped aaprt for these statements…
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/panetta_people_dont_need_assault_weapons.html


  85. 85 | January 17, 2013 12:49 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Yes, but they don’t mind killing people in persuit of their goals. They shed no tears over the dead at Waco. I’d bet Janet Reno felt that they “had it coming” for thwarting her will. Certainly nobody lost their job over the worst law-enforcement debacle in the nation’s history. And they won’t mind imprisoning someone for a long period of time for violating their gun laws. Possession of an unregistered machinegun is really misdemenor tax evasion, but it is a felony punishible by up to ten years in prison. You can do more hard time for having a war trophy in your gun room than you would get for raping a woman. This isn’t considered “cruel and unusual” by the gun control establishment (and presumably by the courts). But death (or even life in prison) for a gangbanger who randomly shoots someone is. Look at all the effort that was spent to save Tookie Williams.


  86. 86 | January 17, 2013 12:50 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:
    Jay Carney actually managed to use “common sense” twice in one sentence the other day.
    It is clearly going to be a repeat talking-point, the way Obama kept repeating “millionaires and billionaires” and “fair share.”
    Every one here should start formulating in their own minds how to respond to the forthcoming blizzard invocations of “common sense.”

    It’s a Joesph Goebbels technique for propaganda and indoctrination. Repeat certain key words and phrases over and over again until they become fixed in the general populations mind as having the meaning you declare them to have.


  87. lobo91
    87 | January 17, 2013 12:52 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Yes, but they don’t mind killing people in persuit of their goals.

    Marxists never do.


  88. heysoos
    88 | January 17, 2013 12:52 pm

    someone should ask Biden what parts of the Lott study he disagrees with


  89. heysoos
    89 | January 17, 2013 12:53 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    Yes, but they don’t mind killing people in persuit of their goals.
    Marxists never do.

    liberal policies get people killed, every day…the body count must be enormous


  90. lobo91
    90 | January 17, 2013 12:53 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    someone should ask Biden what parts of the Lott study he disagrees with

    He’d have to get someone on his staff to tell him.


  91. Da_Beerfreak
    91 | January 17, 2013 12:54 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    you come to the realization that there is nothing there that would have stopped Newtown

    Nothing would have stopped it, but an armed teacher in the classroom would have saved lives. The Left always say “If it saves on elife” losing our freedom to gun control is worth it, but they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that guns actually do save lives.

    Deterrence is the only way to reduce the threat of violence. A very simple proven fact that the Liberals prefer to ignore at all levels.


  92. lobo91
    92 | January 17, 2013 12:55 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Deterrence is the only way to reduce the threat of violence. A very simple proven fact that the Liberals prefer to ignore at all levels.

    As soon as the White House gets rid of its armed security and puts up “Gun Free Zone” signs, I’ll do the same.


  93. 93 | January 17, 2013 12:57 pm

    @ lobo91:

    I want police limited to civillian law. If a cop can carry it, I should be able to, too.


  94. heysoos
    94 | January 17, 2013 12:58 pm

    @ lobo91:
    precisely…out his raging ignorance


  95. lobo91
    95 | January 17, 2013 1:00 pm

    OFA is sending out its marching orders:

    Obama Campaign Manager Brags About Obama Signing 23 Executive Actions, Begs Obamabots For Support On Gun Control…

    Yesterday, President Obama announced his plan to protect our children and our communities by helping reduce gun violence.

    We won’t stop every violent act like the one in Newtown, Connecticut. But if we can save the life of even one child, the President believes each of us has a responsibility to take action.

    People like you spoke out and demanded action. Your input, along with ideas from leaders and policymakers across the political spectrum, went into the President’s plan.

    Learn more about the plan, and say you stand with President Obama in tackling this critical issue.

    Most gun owners use their guns safely and responsibly, and the President believes firmly in protecting our Second Amendment rights.

    But common-sense changes can go a long way in keeping our streets and our schools safer — and there’s too much at stake to stand by and wait for action.

    The President will not wait. Yesterday, he signed 23 executive actions to start moving our country in the right direction. And he’s calling on Congress to act on four legislative measures — closing background check loopholes, banning military-style assault weapons, making our schools safer, and increasing access to mental health services — right away.

    Take a look at the President’s plan to reduce gun violence, and stand with him in support:

    http://my.barackobama.com/Gun-Reform

    More soon,

    Messina

    Jim Messina
    Campaign Manager
    Obama for America


  96. heysoos
    96 | January 17, 2013 1:04 pm

    @ lobo91:
    I thought campaign infrastructure had to be dismantled after an election


  97. lobo91
    97 | January 17, 2013 1:05 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    I thought campaign infrastructure had to be dismantled after an election

    This is Obama you’re talking about.


  98. Speranza
    98 | January 17, 2013 1:13 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    Panetta should be shredded, ripped aaprt for these statements…
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/panetta_people_dont_need_assault_weapons.html

    He was an awful Defense Secretary but will look brilliant in comparison to Chuck Hagel.


  99. Da_Beerfreak
    99 | January 17, 2013 1:15 pm

    Apparently, if you don’t support Baby Doc Baraq’s latest power grab you are a racist that supports gun violence and lack common sense… :roll:

    Of course we already know that the Folks with real common sense didn’t vote for Baby Doc Baraq. :cool:


  100. RIX
    100 | January 17, 2013 1:18 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    I would argue that he is not demonstrating “misunderstanding,” but opposition to the Constitution and its purpose—and he gambles (so far, successfully) on popular ignorance and people’s willingness to be bribed with “free” stuff to get away with it.

    It is purposeful.


  101. lobo91
    101 | January 17, 2013 1:20 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Apparently, if you don’t support Baby Doc Baraq’s latest power grab you are a racist that supports gun violence and lack common sense…

    You are according to Tom Brokaw, anyway:

    Tom Brokaw Compares Anti-Gun Campaign To Fight Against Segregation In The 1960s…

    “It reminds me a lot of what happened in the South in the 1960s during the civil rights movement. Good people stayed in their houses and didn’t speak up when there was carnage in the streets and the total violation of a fundamental rights of African-Americans as they marched in Selma, and they let Bull Connor and the redneck elements of the South and the Klan take over their culture in effect and become of face of it. And now a lot of people who I know who grew up during that time have deep regrets about not speaking out.”

    “There were a few brave souls who did and they were knocked down pretty hard within their own communities for coming out and speaking out in a moderate way, not even in a liberal way about the right of African-Americans to be able to vote, for example, and to walk into any restaurant they wanted to. But there was a lot of silence at the time. Now it’s time for the people who do have strong feelings, who are feeling that they can’t do anything about it, to kind of band together and have something to say here.”


  102. RIX
    102 | January 17, 2013 1:23 pm

    @ lobo91:
    Brokaw is the guy who made money off of his book
    “The Greatest Generation”
    He paid homage to his father & others & then labeled them
    a bunch of racists.


  103. Daffy Duck
    103 | January 17, 2013 1:24 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Except Brokaw has his analogy 180 degress assbackwards.

    No surprise there.

    It is us who are “speaking out” for our civil (constitutional) rights.


  104. 104 | January 17, 2013 1:28 pm

    @ RIX:

    He may be overstepping, though. People in America like their guns, in general. Sure, they can get away with gun control in places like New York, Chicago, and California, but throughout the rest of the country not so much. Owning a gun is a quinticentially American thing to do. That is why Obama and the Left hate it so much. They want to transform us into a nation of unarmed peasants, but they want us to have the character of unarmed peasants, and even 40 years of public education hasn’t managed to inculcate that in the majority of Americans. I think the Senate will balk at his new gun control proposals. I am certain that most of the 20 Democrats who are up for re-electionin 2014 wish that this issue would just go away.


  105. Da_Beerfreak
    105 | January 17, 2013 1:29 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    heysoos wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    I’m reading some pulp…The List by Brad Thor…data bases freak me out…the means to keep track of nearly everything you do is astonishing

    The reality is that the ability to collect data has far outstripped the ability to analyze it. There’s so much data out there that it’s nearly impossible to separate the important stuff from the garbage.

    I’m more worried about their ability to insert bogus data into the system, frankly.

    The one that keeps coming back into my mind is what is there to stop “them” from inputting all the names from the many Red State phone books. I see Baby Doc’s plan as one to insure more Folks fail background checks.


  106. RIX
    106 | January 17, 2013 1:34 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    Obama is more interested in demonizing his opponents and
    scoring points than actual gun control right now.
    But at the end of the day he does want to come for the guns.


  107. 107 | January 17, 2013 1:35 pm

    Daffy Duck wrote:

    It is us who are “speaking out” for our civil (constitutional) rights.

    Exactly. Second Amendment rights are civil rights. The NRA isn’t the gun lobby. They are a civil rights organization. The people who are for gun control are as anti-civil rights as Bull Connor and Orville Faubus (both Democrats, I might add).


  108. lobo91
    108 | January 17, 2013 1:36 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    The one that keeps coming back into my mind is what is there to stop “them” from inputting all the names from the many Red State phone books. I see Baby Doc’s plan as one to insure more Folks fail background checks.

    I believe that’s exactly what they have in mind.

    For several years now, Democrats have been pushing to have the names off the TSA and NCTC watch lists added to the NICS database. Everyone knows that 90% of what’s in those lists is either wrong or duplicative, but they don’t care about that. They just want to gum up the works.

    And there’s absolutely nothing stopping them from putting any name they want onto one of those lists, because they’re secret.


  109. buzzsawmonkey
    109 | January 17, 2013 1:37 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    The President will not wait.

    re-post:

    Pass-the-Bill-Now Obama
    —apologies to “Barnacle Bill the Sailor”

    “Who’s demanding joint session?
    Who’s demanding joint session?
    Who’s demanding joint session?”
    Cried the US Congress

    “For you I sent—I’m the President”
    Said Pass-the-Bill-Now Obama
    “I want to inform you of my intent”
    Said Pass-the-Bill-Now Obama
    “I want you to fast-track my jobs bill
    If I say “Pass it now” then I know you will
    Who cares if there’s no money in the till?”
    Said Pass-the-Bill-Now Obama

    “You have sent us no bill yet
    You have sent us no bill yet
    You have sent us no bill yet,”
    Cried the US Congress

    “That’s just a detail, so don’t you wail,”
    Said Pass-the-Bill-Now Obama
    “We’ll get full employment and high-speed rail,”
    Said Pass-the-Bill-Now Obama
    “My principles I have outlined
    It’s your job to see that they’re combined
    Because I like to lead from behind,”
    Said Pass-the-Bill-Now Obama

    “What about the Stimulus?
    What about the Stimulus?
    What about the Stimulus?
    Cried the US Congress

    “The jobs weren’t shovel-ready then,”
    Said Pass-the-Bill-Now Obama
    “That’s why I need you to spend again,”
    Said Pass-the-Bill-Now Obama
    “I’ll raise taxes on all the nobs
    To subsidize union flash mobs
    And maybe create a couple of jobs,”
    Said Pass-the-Bill-Now Obama

    “But we have to read the bill,
    But we have to read the bill,
    But we have to read the bill,”
    Cried the US Congress

    “Such niceties you should ignore,”
    Said Pass-the-Bill-Now Obama
    “You never asked to read the bill before,”
    Said Pass-the-Bill-Now Obama
    “What’s in the bill? Why should you care?
    Just pass it and you’ll find out what’s there
    You have my word you’ll pay your fair share,”
    Said Pass-the-Bill-Now Obama


  110. 110 | January 17, 2013 1:38 pm

    RIX wrote:

    But at the end of the day he does want to come for the guns.

    Oh, I am certain of that. But there are still limits on his power. If he gave a general confiscation order, most law enforcement in many parts of the country would simply ignore it. He doesn’t have enough BATF fanatics to do anything on a national level, and he knows that. And there would be resistance. How much is uncertain, but there would be resistance.


  111. Da_Beerfreak
    111 | January 17, 2013 1:41 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    They always want to “keep guns out of the hands of criminals” rather than “keep criminals off the streets”. It is indicative of their mindset that they always go for this. They aren’t concernd abou tthe crime. They are concerned about the gun. Somebody beaten to death with a hammer doesn’t present a political oppertunity for them, so they simply don’t count.

    Were we following the intended direction of the founding fathers keeping criminals off the streets would not be a problem. In the opinion of our highly esteemed founding fathers, “Men are far less inclined towards criminal activity when the inevitable results of such activity are to be shot in the act of committing a crime”.

    Justice. Simple, swift, and certain.


  112. lobo91
    112 | January 17, 2013 1:44 pm

    Facts? We don’t need no steenkin’ facts!:

    Shocker: Limiting Size Of Gun Magazine Will Only Slow Killer Down By A Few Seconds…

    New York’s new law limiting the number of bullets in semiautomatic rifle magazines won’t stop determined mass killers, firearms experts said yesterday.

    It takes six to eight seconds to fire off a 30-round magazine like that used in the Newtown killings, said Joseph Green, a retired firearms instructor and agent of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

    A well-trained shooter would need roughly 13.5 to 22 seconds to fire off the same number of bullets with six magazines of five rounds each, which are legal in New York.

    A shooter needs 1.5 seconds to swap out each cartridge, and each five-round cartridge takes one to two seconds to shoot.

    Killers facing stressful situations — such as a lot of screaming people — might need a bit more time to swap cartridges, Green said.

    But he and other experts say swapping magazines means just a minor delay for determined mass killers.

    “It’s not difficult for someone proficient to change magazines. It will take you a few more seconds, nothing longer,” said John Cerar, a retired NYPD deputy inspector and former head of the firearms-training unit.


  113. AZfederalist
    114 | January 17, 2013 1:49 pm

    @ lobo91:

    And if there is not an armed person to oppose the perp, that few seconds makes no difference. The only real solution is the elimination of gun free zones since they have now been shown multiple times that they don’t work.


  114. 115 | January 17, 2013 1:50 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Seconds count only if people are shooting back at you or are aggressive in other ways. Such as might happen against multiple home invaders. People have been trained to be passive in situation slike this, and simply run to get away. Very few people would charge the shooter and try to disarm him while he was changing magazines. OTOH< armed victims could shoot back. If the President was really concerned with victims, he’d be focusing on the things that could do them some good.


  115. citizen_q
    116 | January 17, 2013 1:51 pm

    @ lobo91:
    Well that settles it then. They will have to ban all firearms. For the children of course.

    Is a slash really needed?


  116. lobo91
    117 | January 17, 2013 1:53 pm

    citizen_q wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    Well that settles it then. They will have to ban all firearms. For the children of course.
    Is a slash really needed?

    Or we could ban children.

    Actually, I think a lot of people on the left would like to do that, but that’s another matter…


  117. 118 | January 17, 2013 1:54 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Ban people! That is the Left’s wildest dream. The Left are very anti-human


  118. Daffy Duck
    119 | January 17, 2013 1:56 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Or, as I’ve said before, ban public schools -- they produce a disproportionate amount of the killers, and victims.


  119. Daffy Duck
    120 | January 17, 2013 1:57 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Yes! Mother Gaia would be so clean, and pure, and happy…unicorns, rainbows, and, and…


  120. 121 | January 17, 2013 1:59 pm

    @ Daffy Duck:

    The Left think that the best thing you can do for the children is have an abortion… :roll:


  121. citizen_q
    122 | January 17, 2013 1:59 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    Or we could ban children.

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    Ban people! That is the Left’s wildest dream. The Left are very anti-human…

    Have we segued into climate change? I thought the off yourself bit was those really serious about reducing humans carbon footprint.

    /


  122. lobo91
    123 | January 17, 2013 1:59 pm

    citizen_q wrote:

    A Democratic state assemblywoman, Angelica Jimenez, has proposed that all new gun buyers in New Jersey undergo a mental health evaluation and home inspection first.

    When that proposal first came up, someone suggested that the fact that a person wanted to own a gun should cause them to fail the mental health evaluation.

    And they were serious.


  123. lobo91
    124 | January 17, 2013 2:00 pm

    @ citizen_q:

    Have we segued into climate change? I thought the off yourself bit was those really serious about reducing humans carbon footprint.

    What makes you think these are different people?

    Stupid people believe stupid crap.


  124. buzzsawmonkey
    125 | January 17, 2013 2:04 pm

    citizen_q wrote:

    Have we segued into climate change? I thought the off yourself bit was those really serious about reducing humans carbon footprint.

    The climate change people should be partying down over Newtown. Lanza did his job for Gaia in reducing carbon footprints, eliminating not only his own and his mother’s, but the huge carbon footprints that would have resulted in those twenty kids growing to adulthood and starting families of their own. He’s a climate change hero!


  125. Da_Beerfreak
    126 | January 17, 2013 2:05 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ unclassifiable:

    He was dumb to make this public information and there should be a flood of FOIA request forcing him to outline how all communications in this effort will be available to the public because he is carrying out this action as a public official.

    The problem with FOIA requests is that this administration has gone to extraordinary (and illegal) lengths to hide its communications in order to foil such requests.

    They routinely use commercial webmail accounts to discuss things they don’t want to become public, which is illegal. There’s also reportedly an entirely separate White House email system--paid for with tax dollars--that they use for the same purpose.

    The same Liberals that threw a hissy fit over Nixon’s tape recorder… :roll:


  126. citizen_q
    127 | January 17, 2013 2:09 pm

    @ lobo91:
    It would not surprise me.

    If weren’t so serious and tragic, it would almost be funny watching these fools try to out do each other in “common sense” schemes.


  127. 128 | January 17, 2013 2:09 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Nixon was a Republican. Surely you see the difference…


  128. Da_Beerfreak
    129 | January 17, 2013 2:10 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    They always want to “keep guns out of the hands of criminals” rather than “keep criminals off the streets”. It is indicative of their mindset that they always go for this. They aren’t concernd abou tthe crime. They are concerned about the gun. Somebody beaten to death with a hammer doesn’t present a political oppertunity for them, so they simply don’t count.

    now is the perfect time for the GOP to unleash the hounds and flat out mock any gun law that cannot be proven to reduce murder…there is so much irrational crap spewing, just pick em off one by one…my favorite is trying to define assault weapon and their deadly pistol grips…whatever the GOP is not pushing back, not pre-emptive, not proactive enough…gotta get in their face

    Good luck with that.
    You’ll never be able to pull the useless GOPee out from underneath the bed they’re hiding under… :evil:


  129. citizen_q
    130 | January 17, 2013 2:11 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    He’s a climate change hero!

    As well as with the brady and anti 2nd Amendment crowd.


  130. Da_Beerfreak
    131 | January 17, 2013 2:12 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Nixon was a Republican. Surely you see the difference…

    Of course. :wink:


  131. 132 | January 17, 2013 2:17 pm

    New Thread.


  132. 133 | January 17, 2013 2:50 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    I did! I had massive project so I didn’t get a chance to comment on it.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David