ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Empty words

Barack Obama attempted to unilaterally impose the following on Americans today:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

It isn't law. It isn't anything but the meaningless words of one man who seeks to disarm Americans.

Labels:

242 Comments:

1 – 200 of 242 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Daniel January 16, 2013 1:22 PM  

Yeah. About those TPS reports.

Anonymous Anonymous January 16, 2013 1:25 PM  

This is 99% ineffective BS. Most of it requires the involved government bureaucracies to actually work for a living and adds more tasks to whatever it is they are doing. Not likely.

Anonymous Freestater January 16, 2013 1:26 PM  

From my cold dead hands

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 1:29 PM  

if obama wanted to he could legally end the import of .223 ammo into the country. He can do that any time he wants with a stroke of his pen. Prices would sky rocket. you couldn't get it if you had the money to pay for it.

He didn't.

Indicates to me this is a dog and pony show to provide republicans cover while they cave on the debt ceiling.

Anonymous tad January 16, 2013 1:29 PM  

Paid-for troll comment designed to disrupt what might otherwise be a productive discussion.

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments January 16, 2013 1:30 PM  

@ Nate

That's the real reason behind the purchase of 2 billion rounds of hollow point, just to mess up the market and make it harder for regular people to get their hands on.

Anonymous Fast N Furious January 16, 2013 1:32 PM  

" Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."

Yeah, and when the trace leads back to Holder's office, what happens then? Oh, nothing.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 January 16, 2013 1:33 PM  

The problem is not so much the decrees, but the implementation of them. Remember, government workers don't like competition and that is why many of them are anti-private gun ownership.

Anonymous jack January 16, 2013 1:34 PM  

@Tad:

Could you clarify the above statement? I try hard not to be confused but, who is the troll? Why is, whatever it is, trolling? And, why cannot a productive discussion be held?

Sometimes, Tad, I enjoy your comments. Believe it or not. Often I wonder at the patience of the blog moderator in not banning you. Ask yourself; Would the same superhuman courtesy be extended on most of the left leaning blogs you visit?

I already know the answer; just interested in yours....

Anonymous Dot connector January 16, 2013 1:35 PM  

"10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."

Nevermind.

Anonymous Conrad The Crazed January 16, 2013 1:37 PM  

I dunno, folks. I read this list and its a very astutely worded group of line items which turn the entire health-care industry into a snitch-network along with schools, while seemingly assuming that background checks for private sales are a done deal (#6), without actually saying so.

All of this may appear to be a lot of hot air, but the general thrust is nevertheless achieved, which is to establish a national registry of gun owners, and lay the groundwork for confiscation via the mental health angle in the ACA.

Softly-worded tyranny yes....but tyranny nonetheless.

Anonymous GWst January 16, 2013 1:38 PM  

It looks like the responsibility for gun control is being handed off to the friendly brownshirts at DHS:

DHS to ‘Expand and Formalize Coordination’ on Gun Control Efforts: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dhs-expand-and-formalize-coordination-gun-control-efforts_696127.html

Ungood. The “gun problem” is going to be policy’d away. Bit by bit - think EPA. No need for him, or anyone else beside the DHS mouthbreathers, to get their hands dirty with this one.

Anonymous Daniel January 16, 2013 1:39 PM  

He could solve 20 and up simply by making an executive order to add lithium to the drinking water supply.

Anonymous ridip January 16, 2013 1:40 PM  

It may be limp, but there is intent.

Found this on Facebook:

My summary of Obama 23:

1. Cough up the data.
2. Privacy be damned.
3. Bribe the states.
4. Exclude more potential owners.
5. If we seize it without cause, good luck getting it back.
6. Make dealers do your dirty work.
7. If you got them put them where you can't quickly get them.
8. Eliminate quick-access locks and safes.
9. More work for cops.
10. Guns are really scary, let us show you.
11. BATF Czar Hoorah!!!
12. Forget cops checking down range before firing.
13. More restrictions on the legal because criminals obey the law.
14. Cook up some CDC BS to show guns am the problem.
15. Develop smart guns that can be remotely disabled or only work for the licensed owner.
16. Turn doctors into narcs.
17. Remove doctor-client privilege (see #14).
18. Bribe the schools.
19. Waste money, increase fear.
20. Screw the states opposing Obamacare because guns make wackos.
21. Down with guns. Up with Obamacare because guns make wackos.
22. Lower all mental healthcare to federal standards because we need more wackos on the streets.
23. Discuss how guns make wackos.

Anonymous Anonymous January 16, 2013 1:40 PM  

Tad, how much does Soros pay you to influence blog comments?

Anonymous Orville January 16, 2013 1:42 PM  

It also explicitly opens your entire healthcare history to law enforcement for any kind of fishing expedition. All with a little "clarification" to HIPAA.

Anonymous Stilicho January 16, 2013 1:43 PM  

if obama wanted to he could legally end the import of .223 ammo into the country. He can do that any time he wants with a stroke of his pen. Prices would sky rocket. you couldn't get it if you had the money to pay for it.

He didn't.


Was at Cabela's on Sunday. The only .223 they had was Israeli imports.

Hey, Sam Scott: time to repay that military aid. Keep the ammo flowing.

Blogger James Dixon January 16, 2013 1:46 PM  

> ...while seemingly assuming that background checks for private sales are a done deal (#6), without actually saying so.

I noticed that. I wonder why that would be? I don't think there's much chance of getting private sale checks implemented, or any chance it would work if it was.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 16, 2013 1:52 PM  

This wasn't that bad, just the normal political rhetoric to uphold the apperances that he is doing something. We still have to wait for legislative action on an assault weapons ban, but it wasn't as bad as it could have been just from reading your summation alone.

Anonymous Josh January 16, 2013 1:54 PM  

From David Weigel:

And these are the legislative ideas -- i.e., the ones the president wants to push through Congress, starting with the  more pliable Senate.Require criminal background checks for all gun sales. (a.k.a. closing the "gun show loophole.")Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.End the freeze on gun violence research.Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans.Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need.Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.

Anonymous Anonymous January 16, 2013 1:56 PM  

The Enabling Act really didn't kill any jews...

Just words.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner January 16, 2013 1:57 PM  

Good ole USSA stealing $500 million dollars from its' citizens so it can murder them with impunity later.

God Bless AmeriKa.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 1:59 PM  

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

I noticed that. I wonder why that would be? I don't think there's much chance of getting private sale checks implemented, or any chance it would work if it was.

This is to allow private sellers who want to, to use a firearms dealer to conduct the checks.

Some dealers already, for a fee, will run a background for two people involved in a private sale.

This is different from requiring said background check, it's distribution information to dealers on how they could do the background check on someone they aren't themselves selling a weapon to.

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments January 16, 2013 1:59 PM  

Ann Coulter:

“As you know, I just got back from England,” Coulter explained. “On the gun crimes, we keep hearing how low they are in Europe and, ‘Oh, they’re so low and they have no guns.’ If you compare white populations, we have the same murder rate as Belgium.”

Good.

“So, perhaps, it’s not a gun problem, it is a demographic problem, which liberals are the one are pushing, pushing, pushing, ‘Let’s add more [African-American mass murderer] Colin Fergusons and more whoever the [Muslim] guy was who shot up Fort Hood.’ Why are they coming in to begin with?”

Even better.


Coulter suggested that if President Barack Obama decided to use an executive order to ban high-capacity magazines then the next Republican president should respond by banning “abortionists and abortion clinics.”


...... Facepalm. The reality of Abortion is that it's main effect has been to reduce nonwhite population.

Anonymous Josh January 16, 2013 2:00 PM  

"shall not be infringed"

End of debate.

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments January 16, 2013 2:00 PM  

@ dh

Bullshit. It's the first step in forcing all private sellers to use a background check and create a paper trail.

Blogger MidKnight January 16, 2013 2:00 PM  

Snark and commentary on the points....

http://mzmadmike.livejournal.com/123999.html

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 2:00 PM  

14. Cook up some CDC BS to show guns am the problem.

This is likely not related to guns, this is about violent video games. The CDC is already conduting studies on media influences on children.

Anonymous FrankBrady January 16, 2013 2:02 PM  

Be careful. The innocuous sounding "universal background check" will necessarily have to include some sort of national gun registration scheme or it cannot be implemented. This is very dangerous because it is exactly the sort of thing that RINOs and other idiots will seize upon to appear "reasonable" to the media.

Anonymous Choam Nomsky January 16, 2013 2:03 PM  

". The reality of Abortion is that it's main effect has been to reduce nonwhite population. "

The reality is welfare and EBT-cards create crime within nonwhite populations.

The "next Republican president" should use executive orders to eliminate entitlements and abortion.

Yeah...I know... as likely as having a "next Republican president" but a fella can dream, right?

Anonymous RINO January 16, 2013 2:04 PM  

Can impeachment start finally?

Anonymous FrankBrady January 16, 2013 2:06 PM  

Number 1 on "Contrad the Crazed" and his warning about healthcare and I'd expand it to include any involvement by the CDC. This is or should be a red flag. Obama and his crew are liars who mean to do us harm.

Anonymous Mina January 16, 2013 2:07 PM  

"Tad" is not here - I believe "tad" is providing some comic relief.

You guys gotta quit feeding that troll, in any case.

Anonymous Josh January 16, 2013 2:08 PM  

THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD HAVE VOTED FOR ROMNEY!

Blogger Giraffe January 16, 2013 2:09 PM  

I'm actually kinda surprised. There isn't anything really to it. "Clarifying", "Proposing", "Adressing", writing letters and starting dialogs. Obama just blinked.

Anonymous Stilicho January 16, 2013 2:09 PM  

I noticed that. I wonder why that would be? I don't think there's much chance of getting private sale checks implemented, or any chance it would work if it was.

The plan appears to be to send strongly worded letters from ATF to licensed dealers "suggesting" that they start running checks on anyone who sells them a gun and implying that there could be negative consequences if they do not "voluntarily" comply.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 2:09 PM  

Bullshit. It's the first step in forcing all private sellers to use a background check and create a paper trail.

Ok, fine it's the first step. However, it is not a requirement in itself to use backgorund checks for private sales.

First Step =! Done Deal do you agree with that?

Anonymous RINO January 16, 2013 2:11 PM  

THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD HAVE VOTED FOR ROMNEY!

Actually .... yes.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 2:15 PM  

The plan appears to be to send strongly worded letters from ATF to licensed dealers "suggesting" that they start running checks on anyone who sells them a gun and implying that there could be negative consequences if they do not "voluntarily" comply.

Would require a change to the 1968 Gun Control Act. The NICS can only be currently accessed by an entity holding an FFL.

Anonymous Stilicho January 16, 2013 2:17 PM  

First Step =! Done Deal do you agree with that?

tent...camel's nose...etc. The first step does not have to be the final goal in order for it to cross impermissible lines. shall not be infringed actually means shall not be infringed.

Just because you only let your opponent get a first down instead of scoring a touchdown does not mean that you should let him get a first down.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 2:18 PM  

It isn't law. It isn't anything but the meaningless words of one man who seeks to disarm Americans.

The problem being of couse that you can't nor can anyone point to any action he has taken which has the effect of disarming Americans.

There is nothing here. Yesterday you predicted today he would bypass Congress to disarm Americans. Today you are shown to be wrong, again.

Yesterday you predicted he would use executive orders to side step Congress on magazine clips and so-called assault weapons. You were wrong.

Anonymous Elmer? (who's Elmer?) January 16, 2013 2:18 PM  

What Obama really is... (His TRUE function)

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 16, 2013 2:20 PM  

Romney would have issued the same executive orders. The only difference is that most of the mainstream conservatives that are now raising a ruckus would have been supportive of Romney's "courage","leadership", "vision", " bipartisanship" etc.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 2:20 PM  

tent...camel's nose...etc. The first step does not have to be the final goal in order for it to cross impermissible lines. shall not be infringed actually means shall not be infringed.

Just because you only let your opponent get a first down instead of scoring a touchdown does not mean that you should let him get a first down.


What is the impermissble line? That private sellers can choose to run a criminal background check on a prospective buyer, if they want to?

This is beyond silly. The line hasn't moved at all. You are THIS CLOSE to starting shooting, yet the line hasn't moved. At all.

Anonymous Stilicho January 16, 2013 2:20 PM  

The NICS can only be currently accessed by an entity holding an FFL.

Those would be the "licensed dealers" referenced in my post. Do try to keep up. Besides, regardless of any such law, the chilling effect is a desired outcome.

Anonymous HardReturn¶ January 16, 2013 2:23 PM  

Seems to be a lot of "mental health" jibba-jabba mixed in a customary slurry of Govspeak. I think Vox posted something a while back about the creeping Sovietization of mental health industry. The Soviets got their intelligentsia to declare what the regime did not like as mental illness, in need of "rehabilitation." It was a handy was to dispose of dissidents alongside actual criminals. The US seems to be sliding in that same direction.

Anonymous Anonymous January 16, 2013 2:26 PM  

"Romney would have issued the same executive orders. The only difference is that most of the mainstream conservatives that are now raising a ruckus would have been supportive..."

You keep believing that, if it makes you feel better.

Menshevik: You know, the Czar would have done the same thing to me.
Bolshevik: We know, comrade. Now...on your knees...

Anonymous Red Comet January 16, 2013 2:26 PM  

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Heh, is the Obama Administration absolutely certain they want this one?

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 2:26 PM  

"Obama just blinked."

yes. but most here don't realize that.

Anonymous Signe January 16, 2013 2:27 PM  

(May I cross-post the "translation" bit from the other thread, or would it get nuked?)

Anonymous Stilicho January 16, 2013 2:28 PM  

What is the impermissble line?

That is a foolish question that demonstrates your lack of understanding. It is not incumbent upon those who seek to preserve their freedom and God-given rights to justify how far the government may infringe upon those rights. The onus is on anyone who would infringe upon those rights to justify their actions.

Now, if you disagree with this position, you must also believe that it is incumbent upon a rape victim to justify trying to prevent a rapist from achieving penetration if the rapist proclaims his intent to "only put it in a little bit."

Anonymous JI January 16, 2013 2:30 PM  

Sounds win-win to me. He creates more federal bureaucracy jobs and at the same time appeases left and incites the right who look unreasonable when they overreact. The only losers, of course, are the taxpayers who have to pay for this bureaucratic nonsense.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 2:30 PM  

Those would be the "licensed dealers" referenced in my post. Do try to keep up. Besides, regardless of any such law, the chilling effect is a desired outcome.
If you are selling a gun to a dealer, you (the seller) would be the one access NICS. Individuals can't access the NICS, because of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

For an FFL, there is no way to enter a check for a person selling a gun. Only buying.

The ATF letter in question is avialable online.

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2013/01/011613-ffl-open-letter-facilitating-transfers-of-firearms-between-private-individuals.pdf

Read it yourself. Sounds CHILLING. I am sure all those FFL's are SHAKING IN THEIR BOOTS.

I swear ONE MORE POLITELY WORDED LETTER and i am THIS CLOSE to starting the shooting...

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 2:30 PM  

"tent...camel's nose...etc. The first step does not have to be the final goal in order for it to cross impermissible lines. shall not be infringed actually means shall not be infringed."

Dude please. The camel has been shitting in the tent since 1934.

Anonymous Mina January 16, 2013 2:31 PM  

"Obama just blinked."

Agree. Good time to strike.

I know a lot of you don't like/respect the NRA, but did you see the two new videos they posted today? IMO - Great stuff, Good start.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 2:33 PM  

Dude please. The camel has been shitting in the tent since 1934.

You are exactly right. Proof that the arm chair rebels are just full of hot air. =

There aren't any material changes to gun laws, restrictions, or anything else in this batch of paper pushing today. Nothing.

If you were going to start shooting, it would have already happened. All of the huffing and puffing sure sounds like a lot of sour grapes about the fact they didn't even run a candidate in the last election, let alone win.

Anonymous paradox January 16, 2013 2:34 PM  

RINO January 16, 2013 2:11 PM

THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD HAVE VOTED FOR ROMNEY!

Actually .... yes.


Bull Shit! This is why you should have voted for Ron Paul. Romney would have done the same as the chocolate Jesus. As governor, Romney signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 16, 2013 2:35 PM  

"There is nothing here. Yesterday you predicted today he would bypass Congress to disarm Americans. Today you are shown to be wrong, again."

Sigh. This is politics, not astrology. The reason he didn't bypass Congress today was all the chatter yesterday about people going circus-berzerkus if he crossed the line. Push, pushback, whatnot. Schoolyard shit. I thought you were supposed to be the smart ones. Oh wait, you skipped all the schoolyard shit because you went to the magnet school, I remember.

Remind me never to ask you to renegotiate a contract for me.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 2:37 PM  

"You keep believing that, if it makes you feel better."

You realize that Romney not only did exactly that in Mass.. but also announced his intentions to do it again as president. Right?

Anonymous VD January 16, 2013 2:38 PM  

There is nothing here. Yesterday you predicted today he would bypass Congress to disarm Americans. Today you are shown to be wrong, again.

Yesterday you predicted he would use executive orders to side step Congress on magazine clips and so-called assault weapons. You were wrong.


Oh, did I? Do provide the quotes where I said Obama would do those things or admit that you were wrong and retract your claims. In fact, do provide the evidence that I said anything at all about what would happen today.

Anonymous RINO January 16, 2013 2:40 PM  

Bull Shit! This is why you should have voted for Ron Paul. Romney would have done the same as the chocolate Jesus. As governor, Romney signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts.

There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Romney would have done the same thing as what Obama did today. At worst you can say he is a political chameleon who changes his positions to fit with public opinion polling. Do you know how gun control polls nationally?

Voting for Ron Paul would lead to gun control. He would happily leave the borders open while being unable to move any extensive welfare/entitlement reform through Congress. Then the Mexicans would vote for gun control and politicians that support gun control.

Anonymous Signe January 16, 2013 2:40 PM  

There aren't any material changes to gun laws, restrictions, or anything else in this batch of paper pushing today. Nothing.

No. The material changes they want are the ones that allow them to use "mental health" as an excuse to take away anyone's rights at any time, and God help you if they manage it even temporarily.

Anonymous paradox January 16, 2013 2:41 PM  

This is nothing more than show, political posturing for the real move. Obama knows congress will not pass an assault weapons ban. So when another larger Sandy Hook happens, he can blame 2nd Amendment supporters in congress.

Anonymous Stilicho January 16, 2013 2:42 PM  

Dude please. The camel has been shitting in the tent since 1934.
Sure, but that's not the question that was being addressed.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 2:43 PM  

"
There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Romney would have done the same thing as what Obama did today. At worst you can say he is a political chameleon who changes his positions to fit with public opinion polling. Do you know how gun control polls nationally?"

again... Romney flat out said gun control would be a tool to get democrats to cave on other issues. Debate number 3.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 16, 2013 2:43 PM  

Nate:
Dude please. The camel has been shitting in the tent since 1934.

More like 1861.

Blogger Giraffe January 16, 2013 2:44 PM  

@RINO
At worst you can say he is a political chameleon who changes his positions to fit with public opinion polling. Do you know how gun control polls nationally?


68% in favor. That was on CBS news, so take it with a grain of salt. That would be good enough for Romney.

I think you are right. We need more political chameleons. Principles are hard to come by in politicians anyway.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 2:45 PM  

"If you were going to start shooting, it would have already happened."

Here we disagree. A mere sales ban isn't enough to cause me to start shooting. I didn't last time and I wouldn't this time.

Actively enforced registration and confiscation?

Yeah.

That would be another story.

Anonymous paradox January 16, 2013 2:47 PM  

RINO January 16, 2013 2:40 PM

There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Romney would have done the same thing as what Obama did today. At worst you can say he is a political chameleon who changes his positions to fit with public opinion polling. Do you know how gun control polls nationally?


Once again BS. In the last debate Romney touted signing Massachusetts' assault weapons ban as an accomplishment. Said it was an example on how he worked with Democrats. He gave every indication he would pass an ban on magazines and rifles.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 2:47 PM  

My Take:

This is all about the debt ceiling. Elephants can put on a big show of standing up to Obama... that way... later on when they cave and permanently eliminate the debt ceiling in exchange for tiny spending cuts that won't ever happen... they can still say, "Yeah but we won on guns!"

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 2:48 PM  

No. The material changes they want are the ones that allow them to use "mental health" as an excuse to take away anyone's rights at any time, and God help you if they manage it even temporarily.

They already can. This is what is so frustrating about you people.

The law has already allowed this for 45 years.

-- has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
-- is a fugitive from justice;
-- is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
-- has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

-- is an illegal or unlawful alien or a non-immigrant alien (with certain exceptions);
-- has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
-- having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
-- is subject to a domestic violence protection order that meets certain requirements;
-- has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; or
-- is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

It's just stupid.

Everything you people are complaining about has been place and used repeatedly for decades.

But of course you are all THIS CLOSE to starting the shooting...

Anonymous Stilicho January 16, 2013 2:48 PM  

I swear ONE MORE POLITELY WORDED LETTER and i am THIS CLOSE to starting the shooting...

Please show us where I have said this, Or feel free to retract.

Anonymous RINO January 16, 2013 2:49 PM  

again... Romney flat out said gun control would be a tool to get democrats to cave on other issues. Debate number 3.

Suddenly "Romney flat out said ..." is seen as definitive evidence for future action?

Blogger ray January 16, 2013 2:50 PM  

"It isn't law. It isn't anything but the meaningless words of one man who seeks to disarm Americans."

not "meaningless"

obie is the proxy for 150 million u.s. females, and it is the will of females to remove the last vestige of, ah, objection to the MATRIARCHY under which we all exist, from the hands of males who have not yet been fully . . . degendered

whatever it is, gun snatch or otherwise, if the amerikan woman wants it, then you will be expected to capitulate to the Uberfrauen

or else

enjoy your Liberty! :O)

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 2:50 PM  

Here we disagree. A mere sales ban isn't enough to cause me to start shooting. I didn't last time and I wouldn't this time.

At least your honest about it. Thanks.

So basically you aren't going to shoot unless someone comes for your gun, or makes you register your gun.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 2:51 PM  

"Suddenly "Romney flat out said ..." is seen as definitive evidence for future action?"

Given that he actually did it in Mass? Yes.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 2:52 PM  

"So basically you aren't going to shoot unless someone comes for your gun, or makes you register your gun."

even then I would likely attempt to leave first.

Anonymous Signe January 16, 2013 2:52 PM  

But of course you are all THIS CLOSE to starting the shooting...

Do you think the media covers all deaths of government employees or known sympathizers?

Just a little question for you to think about. No need to wet your panties.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 16, 2013 2:53 PM  

I don't recall any ruckus about mental health when Omar Thornton shot hizzelf all dem crackaz. Because he was right to cap dem crackaz, because racism an sheeit. I don't recall a lot of fuss about mental health when Major Hassan, who was, if I recall correctly, a mental health professional, shot and killed all them kuffar. I seem to recall at the time that we were sternly warned not to jump to conclusions about anything.

Who are the poster boys for the left's little gun circus? Lanza, Holmes, Laughner (not a mass murderer) and the VA Tech Korean guy for a little diversity. But man, they sure do love to show those pictures of Holmes, with the orange hair. Who is missing from the lineup? Thornton (negro), and Hassan (sacred Muslim Other). Oh, and also the daily roundup of Jaquantrius, DeShawn, Malik, Habazz, Vetrantro, Pablo, Juan, Pablo, Juan, Pablo, Mohammed, Mohammed, and Mohammed.

I seem to recall that Holmes shot up a movie theater while Obama was president, yet we didn't endure the circus of the last few weeks. Oh, right, there was an election in progress, don't scare the bear. But once Obama won, and the official Leftist sack dance was on about "Ha ha! Eat shit, you old white people! We stole your country through immigration, and now you don't matter any more!" all of a sudden another gun crime was a useful casus belli, and I do mean belli.

Meanwhile in Chicago, the body count rises with the sun, and nobody mentions the correlation between negritude and gun crime.

Psycho white people shooting up crowds is a statistically rare, unpredictable event in a nation of 300 million. Maybe another will go off next week, maybe it'll take two years. But you know what I can predict with mathematical certainty? That within the next two days there will be a story somewhere about "criminal urban negro kills or injures person with handgun."

But leftists are the ones who care about "science". Cue Thomas Dolby.

Anonymous Stilicho January 16, 2013 2:53 PM  

Yeah. About those TPS reports.

Winning the thread with the first post is just bad form old boy.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 2:53 PM  

S...
Please show us where I have said this, Or feel free to retract.

I am reacting to this:

The first step does not have to be the final goal in order for it to cross impermissible lines. shall not be infringed actually means shall not be infringed.

You wrote this in my description of the actions of today. I read "impermissable lines" to mean, the point from which talking is over and action is required.

If that's not your view of it, please say so, and consider this a retraction.

Anonymous Tad January 16, 2013 2:54 PM  

@Vox Day

the meaningless words of one man who seeks to disarm Americans

Just for the record and just so it doesn't slip by in the context of this conversation, your above statement concerning the President's intent to "disarm Americans" is an assertion with no credible evidence behind whatsoever. Furthermore, you know this...And yet, you state it nonetheless.

It's very disappointing to see you to be so willing to present conjecture as fact, and to present your uninformed opinion as truth. Very disappointed. You should be ashamed of yourself. I thought you knew better.

Anonymous RINO January 16, 2013 2:54 PM  

Once again BS. In the last debate Romney touted signing Massachusetts' assault weapons ban as an accomplishment. Said it was an example on how he worked with Democrats. He gave every indication he would pass an ban on magazines and rifles.

Word has come out this week that an assault weapons ban is pretty much a non-issue in Congress at this point. Even with Obama as president. Even with Democrats controlling the Senate. Even a month after a mass shooting. So I'm curious as to how "he would pass" anything of the sort. Everyone was fully aware of the Romney campaign's tactic of jumping to the moderate center for the national debates. If he had won this would be Romney's first term and I highly doubt he would have wasted his political capital at this point with plenty of conservatives willing to primary him in 2016.

Anonymous Tad January 16, 2013 2:57 PM  

@Josh

"shall not be infringed"

End of debate.


Josh thinks there are no limits on any enumerated rights.

Josh doesn't understand the American Constitution.

Watch closely as Josh is forced to defend the notion that a ban on possession of nuclear weapons is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Watch as Josh further is forced to claim that all libel and slander laws are unconstitutional.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 2:57 PM  

"So I'm curious as to how "he would pass" anything of the sort. "

So you really haven't heard the saying, "only nixon could go to China?"

Anonymous Elmer (just plain ole Elmer, ya know, like in yogert) January 16, 2013 2:57 PM  

Need I remind everyone just who sits on the editorial board at VT?

Leo Wanta – Former National Director of Intelligence, White House, Inspector General, Department of Defense

From the link above, click on his name, and let the Senior Editor (a USMC Vietnam combat veteran) introduce him to you, the best way he knows how.

I just sent this to everyone at LRC this morning: (re: to an LRC Blog post)

I am speaking collectively to all you guys at LRC et al.

I ask myself, how can so many well educated and informed individuals be so mis-informed and/or dis-informed?

Why even pay attention (give attention) to this nonsense? (re: article)

If one is going to mention this, then at the very least, offer a real alternative. That is, offer something that is concrete and real. Something that actually exists.

You say you have your own solution(s). You propose it. You mention the U.S. Treasury. And, then you mention Obama in the mix.

You attempt to convince myself and others that this will indeed work. When, in fact, it is just satire, and it will never work, because it is all theory, and no one will ever support it.

You waste your time with an audience, first concerning to the stupid suggestion by the Federal Reserve and the White House. Then, you compound it with your suggestion, that is even more absurd!

Here's a suggestion.

Drop everything on your plate right now, and start comprehending the following:

WANTA-REAGAN-MITTERRAND PROTOCOL FUNDS

Then as responsible journalists, REPORT IT! Start informing the general public.

It would seem to me, that if there is any kind of conspiracy (or conspiracy theories), it is that conspiracy of those who WILL not be informed on this matter, and continue to participate in the conspiracy of not allowing others to be so informed.

WHO put out the official gag order on this?

Are all you individuals truly in the pocket of G.H.W. Bush et al?

Why the conspiracy of silence here? I and many others want to know.

Why is Alex Jones et al afraid of this? In other words, why does he publicly spout lies on this, when confronted with the facts? It is as though he is being blackmailed. Are you guys here as well?

Why is RT silent on this? Why isn't Lyster interviewing Barnewall? Two people, experts in finance, one in banking, should be talking together about this. Why isn't that?

Let me ask you this. How many of you here, are experts on banking, finance, or intelligence? Anyone?

Why is it, that VT, Jeff Rense, PressTV, Stew Webb, Tom Heneghan et al are the only ones on the planet, at present, that seem to get it?

I can speak for the MSM. They have an excuse. They are paid liars.

But how about the rest of your guys? LRC, Infowars, Drudge, RT? Have I missed anyone? Even Weiss Research, Simon Black (a supposed former Army intel op), Bill Bonner et al appear to be clueless on this.

WTF is going on here?

I'm beside myself, thinking, "I'm informing you guys?!?" And, I don't do this for a living. I'm not a professional here.

I'm thinking here, I lost my home and lifestyle because of the (and actions) Federal Reserve System. But, on top of that, did I (and will continue to) loose my home and lifestyle because of the fact that LRC et al FAILED to INFORM the general public on the:

WANTA-REAGAN-MITTERRAND PROTOCOL FUNDS?

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 2:58 PM  

"Josh thinks there are no limits on any enumerated rights. "

Now is the word "infringed" in all of the enumerated rights? or only one?

Anonymous Stilicho January 16, 2013 2:59 PM  

Please show us where I have said this, Or feel free to retract.

I am reacting to this:

The first step does not have to be the final goal in order for it to cross impermissible lines. shall not be infringed actually means shall not be infringed.

You wrote this in my description of the actions of today. I read "impermissable lines" to mean, the point from which talking is over and action is required.

If that's not your view of it, please say so, and consider this a retraction.


That is not what I was saying. The reference to the Constitution should have given that away. Especially since my comment was in response to your statement that first steps /= final goal. My point was (and is) that incremental infringement is still infringement and should be resisted. Nor does the fact that previous infringements have occurred change the fact that additional infringements should be resisted.

Anonymous Josh January 16, 2013 3:00 PM  

Voting for Ron Paul would lead to gun control. He would happily leave the borders open while being unable to move any extensive welfare/entitlement reform through Congress. Then the Mexicans would vote for gun control and politicians that support gun control.

You're a tard. Ron Paul was the only candidate with an actual plan to secure the borders with actual troops and eliminate the welfare state. Troops on the borders...Mexicans get shot...no welfare...Mexicans leave...

What was Romney's plan?

Anonymous . January 16, 2013 3:00 PM  

the general thrust is nevertheless achieved, which is to establish a national registry of gun owners, and lay the groundwork for confiscation via the mental health angle in the ACA.

When you buy a gun you fill out a form that is sent to the government. So, they already have that national registry. They already know who you are.

Anonymous Starbuck January 16, 2013 3:00 PM  

Yesterday you predicted he would use executive orders to side step Congress on magazine clips and so-called assault weapons. You were wrong.-dh

Huh.. I never saw that. Perhaps he thought it and you channeled VD? Or did you contract verbal VD?

I am guessing he did not say that. Which would make you wrong. I have seen Vox Day admit when he was wrong. I have been chided when I was wrong.

But you are a two bit, cotton pickin, putz. Oh, and a loudmouthed jerk that talks out of his mouth with words from his ass.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 3:01 PM  

I don't recall a lot of fuss about mental health when Major Hassan, who was, if I recall correctly, a mental health professional, shot and killed all them kuffar.

If you read the New York Times you would have. They have published at least a dozen articles about the topic since that shooting:

A sampling:
Painful Stories Take a Toll on Military Therapists
When Soldiers Snap
A Matter of Life and Death: Suicides in the Army
Pentagon Report on Fort Hood Details Failures
Major Hasan’s Smooth Ascension
Focus on Internet Imams as Al Qaeda Recruiters
Muslim Clergyman Speaks

Psycho white people shooting up crowds is a statistically rare, unpredictable event in a nation of 300 million. Maybe another will go off next week, maybe it'll take two years. But you know what I can predict with mathematical certainty? That within the next two days there will be a story somewhere about "criminal urban negro kills or injures person with handgun."

The difference between how the rare shooting is dealt with, and the urban negro crime problem is dealt with are striking. On the one hand, we have thousands of cops and people working on stopping it. And failing. And on the other hand, we are doing nothing. Because it's unpredictable?

Anonymous Tad January 16, 2013 3:03 PM  

@Nate

"Josh thinks there are no limits on any enumerated rights. "

Now is the word "infringed" in all of the enumerated rights? or only one?


Oh, please Nate...Please argue it's a violation of the 2nd Amendment to ban ownership of nuclear arms...Please.

You are brutally out of your league.

Anonymous paradox January 16, 2013 3:03 PM  

Nate January 16, 2013 2:52 PM

"So basically you aren't going to shoot unless someone comes for your gun, or makes you register your gun."

even then I would likely attempt to leave first.


Probably, be worth giving up the firearms then, just to leave the hellhole at such time. Where do you go that would allow you to bring your guns? If their is such a place. You probably wouldn't want to answer that.

Anonymous Mina January 16, 2013 3:04 PM  

. January 16, 2013 3:00 PM:

I asked about the form when I bought my rifle this weekend. I was very explicit in my query about who got a copy and who would see the information on it.

I was told point blank it is kept on file at the gun store. Period.

Anonymous 691 January 16, 2013 3:06 PM  

This list as a whole seems less like a unilateral imposition of laws than a pledge that the federal bureaucracy will step up its petty abuse of citizens, especially gun owners and the mentally ill. Some of the actions, most notably 11, are clearly within his legal prerogative, although it's laughable that he has not yet, in 4 years, managed to permanently nominate someone for this post. Some are clearly underhanded means to take guns away from current owners; I see no 5 used in a manner similar to the abuses of civil asset forfeiture. Some (2,4,16,17,20-22) seemed designed to use the new apparatus of Obamacare to accomplish similar goals. A charitable reading of 13 is that he will simply enforce existing laws. An uncharitable reading of 13 is that it is a vague, overly broad carte-blanche for any type of abuse, confiscation and prosecution not explicitly covered elsewhere.

Anonymous paradox January 16, 2013 3:07 PM  

Mina January 16, 2013 3:04 PM

. January 16, 2013 3:00 PM:

I asked about the form when I bought my rifle this weekend. I was very explicit in my query about who got a copy and who would see the information on it.

I was told point blank it is kept on file at the gun store. Period.


For 20 years. Gun store are basically paper work storage facilitates for the ATF.

Anonymous RINO January 16, 2013 3:07 PM  

You're a tard. Ron Paul was the only candidate with an actual plan to secure the borders with actual troops and eliminate the welfare state. Troops on the borders...Mexicans get shot...no welfare...Mexicans leave...

But troops on the border can keep people in, or something.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 3:07 PM  

Starbuck:

VD

Obama bypasses Congress
The totalitarians don't have the votes to disarm America, so they're going to try to bypass the democratic process by utilizing Obama and a collection of unconstitutional executive orders.

Anonymous Josh January 16, 2013 3:08 PM  

Josh thinks there are no limits on any enumerated rights.Josh doesn't understand the American Constitution.Watch closely as Josh is forced to defend the notion that a ban on possession of nuclear weapons is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.Watch as Josh further is forced to claim that all libel and slander laws are unconstitutional.

Without amending the constitution, a government ban on nukes is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Libel and slander laws may or may not be constitutional depending on how they deal with false information. The constitution doesn't protect fraud.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 3:10 PM  

That is not what I was saying. The reference to the Constitution should have given that away. Especially since my comment was in response to your statement that first steps /= final goal. My point was (and is) that incremental infringement is still infringement and should be resisted. Nor does the fact that previous infringements have occurred change the fact that additional infringements should be resisted.

Resisted how?

I retract the comment about shooting. Apparenty you believe in the republican form of government - hats off for that.

Anonymous Josh January 16, 2013 3:11 PM  

RINO,

what was Romney's plan?

Anonymous RINO January 16, 2013 3:12 PM  

Just for the record and just so it doesn't slip by in the context of this conversation, your above statement concerning the President's intent to "disarm Americans" is an assertion with no credible evidence behind whatsoever. Furthermore, you know this...And yet, you state it nonetheless.

You realize Obama has an entire career full of disdain for gun manufacturers and gun owners? That he has acted on that disdain many times? That he supports the bill of someone who said "Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in"?

Anonymous Alexander January 16, 2013 3:13 PM  

RINO,

Why do you object to people assuming Mitt Romney would be willing to do what Mitt Romney said he would be willing to do? Why does it offend you that people would take him at his word?

As a follow-up, do you believe that someone who would lie about how they would interpret the constitution a worthy candidate for the US presidency?

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 16, 2013 3:15 PM  

"Josh thinks there are no limits on any enumerated rights.

Josh doesn't understand the American Constitution."

It is federal powers which are enumerated and limited under the American Constitution, not rights. Once again, Mr. Constitutional Expert, the Constitution does not list and enumerate and grant rights. The rights are prior to the Constitution, and they are not enumerated. What is listed in the Bill of Rights is a certain set of enumerated and specified limitations on the power of the federal government, so as to make absolutely certain that the rights are secure under the constitutional government. The Bill of Rights is not a conclusive list of your rights, it is an insurance policy against certain common instances of the sort of wicked, power-grabbing misinterpretation characteristic of, oh, I don't know... maybe the Left. This has been pointed out to you time and again, and yet you always come back with the same hooey, as if you'd never heard it. And you're the alleged expert. It never stops.

You keep coming back with the same bullshit about libel law and nuclear weapons despite the fact that you've been refuted on these points again and again and again and again and again and again. Why, one would almost begin to gather the impression that you're arguing in bad faith.

1. Libel law = a matter for the sovereign states. What 1A says is, CONGRESS shall make no law, remember?

2. Nuclear weapons are not a militia-type weapon; 2A refers to the sort of weaponry commonly understood to properly equip a militia. A militia is not a standing national army, it's not an air force, it's not even the National Guard.

Get some new arguments or else go home, bud. That iguana in the terrarium in your living room is looking like he could use some love, as well as some Iguana Chow.


Anonymous VD January 16, 2013 3:15 PM  

Obama bypasses Congress
The totalitarians don't have the votes to disarm America, so they're going to try to bypass the democratic process by utilizing Obama and a collection of unconstitutional executive orders.


That doesn't say what you said it did.

1. No reference to today.
2. No reference to the content of the executive orders.
3. No reference to the magazine clips or so-called assault weapons.
4. No reference to Obama disarming Americans.

You were wrong. Moreover, your disingenuous ignoring of the "one brick" strategy doesn't escape everyone. It's not a wall, it's just these 22 bricks we're stacking up over here....

Anonymous RINO January 16, 2013 3:17 PM  

RINO,

what was Romney's plan?


He expressed support for self-deportation which actually has real world backing when you see what happened when Arizona and Alabama passed strict immigration and identification laws. They all packed up and left. That position has more backing in reality than Ron Paul's magic libertarian utopia.

Anonymous Starbuck January 16, 2013 3:17 PM  

Obama bypasses Congress
The totalitarians don't have the votes to disarm America, so they're going to try to bypass the democratic process by utilizing Obama and a collection of unconstitutional executive orders.


He said "try". They tried, they didn't succeed. Did they? I didn't see no executive orders banning assualt rifles or magazines > 10 rounds.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 3:19 PM  

"For 20 years. Gun store are basically paper work storage facilitates for the ATF.'

This is correct. however.. its about the most useless database in the world... sense its not searchable at all.

They have to go store by store to try to figure out who owns what.

Anonymous RC January 16, 2013 3:21 PM  

"I asked about the form when I bought my rifle this weekend. I was very explicit in my query about who got a copy and who would see the information on it.

I was told point blank it is kept on file at the gun store. Period."

Yes that's what most will say. The gov also can review, copy, keep these forms for an investigation or audit (which means at their pleasure.) Also, the FBI pre-purchase background check of your name is not recorded either, just like blog comments, texts, shopping, searching, and other Internet activity are strictly private, along with what crops you grow on your land, what animals you might raise, what water you might divert, where you might travel and a whole host of other trifles.

Anonymous Unending Improvement January 16, 2013 3:22 PM  

Yes, let's compare what Romney did in a state that would have seen a veto overruled to what he would do with a Congress with nowhere near enough votes to overturn a veto, and with barely enough votes to push something through.

If you really want to run that ridiculous argument, go right ahead.

Anonymous Mina January 16, 2013 3:23 PM  

"They have to go store by store to try to figure out who owns what." - That's a Bingo! As a database professional I can appreciate the major complication that will create when they try to pinpoint everyone in a geographic area with a weapon.

... which is why their answer was satisfactory.

Anonymous RINO January 16, 2013 3:24 PM  

Why do you object to people assuming Mitt Romney would be willing to do what Mitt Romney said he would be willing to do? Why does it offend you that people would take him at his word?

Because they only make that assumption when it suits them. When it doesn't, Romney is a lying untrustworthy flip flopper.

Blogger Giraffe January 16, 2013 3:24 PM  

This is bull:

NBC journalist David Gregory won’t face charges for displaying a high-capacity ammunition magazine on his “Meet the Press” news show, prosecutors announced Friday.

The city’s office of attorney general, which handles low-level crimes, said criminal charges wouldn’t serve the public’s best interests even though possession of the magazine — capable of holding up to 30 rounds of ammunition — was clearly against the law.


Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 16, 2013 3:25 PM  

"For 20 years. Gun store are basically paper work storage facilitates for the ATF.'

This is correct. however.. its about the most useless database in the world... sense its not searchable at all.

They have to go store by store to try to figure out who owns what.


Except that they call it in and give your name, ss#, and the gun id# while doing the background check.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 16, 2013 3:27 PM  

Rino,

Romney would have gone along with gun bans, to think otherwise is to buck his record and the observable reality of his actions.

Not the hill die on.

Anonymous Mina January 16, 2013 3:27 PM  

RC January 16, 2013 3:21 PM: Agreed. A Very good reason to do what you can to keep your electronic signature on the Internet as under control as possible.

Maintaining several aliases and FB accounts is a great start.

Anonymous Unending Improvement January 16, 2013 3:27 PM  

Also, yet again dh and Tad, the usual suspects, ignore the one brick strategy.

At least someone has finally called those two clowns out on it.

Anonymous Mina January 16, 2013 3:29 PM  

"Except that they call it in and give your name, ss#, and the gun id# while doing the background check." - My understanding, again, is the background checks are done by third parties and not reported to the Government.

Is that mechanism in place now that you know of?

Anonymous FrankBrady January 16, 2013 3:29 PM  

@Tad.

Really, really shut up, Tad. You've not made one cogent point for all of your waste of bandwidth.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 16, 2013 3:30 PM  

If you have bought a papered gun from an FFL you have been de facto registered.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 16, 2013 3:31 PM  

Mina,

Yes when they call in on your background check all the information on your 4473 was relayed to the person on the other end of the line.

They are not supposed to collect that information that they just received. Do you trust the government?

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 3:31 PM  

"Except that they call it in and give your name, ss#, and the gun id# while doing the background check."

Depends on the store. There is a federal web based system... but it doesn't provide any information on what weapon was purchased. No way to know if it was a handgun or rifle. They just know you got a gun.

You have to keep in mind how many millions of weapons are sold every month. The amount of data is just enormous. Simply to much to manage effectively.

Anonymous Mina January 16, 2013 3:33 PM  

Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 16, 2013 3:30 PM:

Can you detail the process by which that was done? I am not saying you wrong I would just like to know how and where.

A follow up might be: How do I purchase a weapon legally without registering the transaction?

Anonymous Stilicho January 16, 2013 3:33 PM  

waste of bandwidth

Ah, Frank, that is the goal you see.

Anonymous Mina January 16, 2013 3:34 PM  

It seems your position is that the Government is always the one doing background checks. There are a lot of 3rd party companies that do background checks.

Are you 100% positive that the Government or an agency of the Government is handling the background checks?

Anonymous TheVillageIdiotRet January 16, 2013 3:34 PM  

Dude please. The camel has been shitting in the tent since 1934.

Stupid Humpbacks

DannyR

Anonymous Alexander January 16, 2013 3:35 PM  

If people don't think Romney is trustworthy, that's his problem, not theirs.

I can believe someone is a liar without believing he lies 100% of the time. To Romney specifically, it seems a bit much that you complain that people call Romney a flip-flopper 'when it suits' when you defend him by arguing he did not mean what he said. Very well, can we agree to dislike Romney because he lies about his opinions on very basic constitutional questions?

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 16, 2013 3:35 PM  

*
Tad: Oh, please Nate...Please argue it's a violation of the 2nd Amendment to ban ownership of nuclear arms...Please.

You are brutally out of your league.


For once, Tad, you are absolutely correct. Just not in the way you imagine...

Anonymous TLM January 16, 2013 3:36 PM  

"Except that they call it in and give your name, ss#, and the gun id# while doing the background check.".....

That also depends on the state you live in. In my state, a CCW holder fills out the 4473, presents his CCW card, pays and leaves. They only make the call when the buyer doesn`t have a CCW.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 16, 2013 3:37 PM  

Mina,

I have sat 2 feet away as they give the all of the information over the telephone to the person on the other end. Again, do you trust the government to throw away what they just received?

Nate is right, that don't know what the gun actually is other than long gun or handgun, but they have the serial # for it. And they know every one that you have bought that way. Do you trust them to throw away that info that they just received on you?

Currently the only way to not have to go through a background check is a person to person sale (aka the Gun Show Loophole). That is where you buy from another person, for example, your neighbor sells you there 9mm pistol they don't want/need anymore.

Anonymous DT January 16, 2013 3:39 PM  

All the drama leading up to this and that's the list???

This lends credence to Vox's idea that Mitt would have been worse because he is driven while Obama is lazy.

I know, I know, bureaucracies build up over time. But Obama's grand push for gun control, at this point, amounts to nothing more then make work BS. You can't even say it's all bark and no bite. It's more like soft whimpering instead of barking or biting.

TPS reports indeed.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 3:39 PM  

"A follow up might be: How do I purchase a weapon legally without registering the transaction?"

1) Buy from an individual. not a store.

2) Buy from a store that is not in your home town.

3) Buy from a small store that phones it in and may or may not go out of business in the next few years.

Anonymous RC January 16, 2013 3:39 PM  

"You have to keep in mind how many millions of weapons are sold every month. The amount of data is just enormous. Simply to much to manage effectively." Nate

Agree that it is a massive amount of data when you look at all streams but they're building the tools and facilities capable of doing precisely that over time. The gun info itself is trivial in size.

I have designed, built, and implemented software and systems that capture massive numbers of call data records per hour from telecom switches, more in an hour than the entirety of gun sales in a year. It's just scale, one immense database warehouse project.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 3:40 PM  

"Nate is right, that don't know what the gun actually is other than long gun or handgun, but they have the serial # for it. And they know every one that you have bought that way. Do you trust them to throw away that info that they just received on you?"

No they don't.

There is no federal data base that can match serial numbers to names.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 16, 2013 3:41 PM  

Mina (and all others interested),

A great book to buy for general information across the board on guns and related issues is Boston's Gun Bible.

They guy has a weird Glock fetish (Sorta like Nate), but the book is a good general resource on many gun topics across the board.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 3:41 PM  

Also, yet again dh and Tad, the usual suspects, ignore the one brick strategy.

At least someone has finally called those two clowns out on it.


I actually love the analogy, and it's a good one.

It does have a weakness, though, and that weakness, is that sometimes a brick is just a brick. Not all bricks are part of a wall.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 3:42 PM  

This is important folks... so listen up.

the process works like this... They find the weapon... and with the serial number... match it up to the gun store that sold it. They then go to that gun store to find out who they sold it to.

Anonymous Mina January 16, 2013 3:43 PM  

Looked up Illinois, and they do a state and federal firearms background check. It doesn't say who does the check but assuming worse case, it's the Government.

Nate, thanks for the tips. Now I am really kicking myself for selling my Dad's Kimber and Colt45 10 years ago. :-(

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 3:44 PM  

"I have designed, built, and implemented software and systems that capture massive numbers of call data records per hour from telecom switches, more in an hour than the entirety of gun sales in a year. It's just scale, one immense database warehouse project."

except that to be effective you would have to input millions of line of data by hand.

not happening.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 3:44 PM  

I have designed, built, and implemented software and systems that capture massive numbers of call data records per hour from telecom switches, more in an hour than the entirety of gun sales in a year. It's just scale, one immense database warehouse project.

It's not that big by any common description of big. I've worked on projects involving existing government databases that contain 6.4 trillion records.

I completed a project with the Dept. of Corrections of California that recorded innmate infractions electronically going back as far as they had paper, and that alone was 10 billion records.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 16, 2013 3:44 PM  

There is no federal data base that can match serial numbers to names.

Of course nobody compiles the info.....

Me, I don't trust that the information doesn't actually get saved and passed on...but then maybe I am just paranoid.

Unless, I am not understanding what you are stating.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 3:44 PM  

"Nate, thanks for the tips. Now I am really kicking myself for selling my Dad's Kimber and Colt45 10 years ago. :-("

while I loathe Kimber... this is clearly something that should get you put over someone's knee.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 3:45 PM  

the process works like this... They find the weapon... and with the serial number... match it up to the gun store that sold it. They then go to that gun store to find out who they sold it to.

Right, which is why the ATF went to the gun store that sold the weapons involved in Sandy Hook.

But Nate, here is a question. When a dealer gives up his FFL, where do the records go? I am quite sure it's directly to the ATF as custodian.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 16, 2013 3:47 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 3:47 PM  

"But Nate, here is a question. When a dealer gives up his FFL, where do the records go? I am quite sure it's directly to the ATF as custodian."

Yes.

Where they are summarily dumped in boxes in a warehouse...

Remember... these are the people that lost the original moon landing tapes. You think they can keep records straight?

Anonymous Mina January 16, 2013 3:48 PM  

Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia:

Thank you for the gun primer / book. Most definitely required reading for me at this point.

Thanks to all for tolerating my rapid-fire questions - I am always data-hungry. I'll go chomp on the reading material for a while. :-)

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 16, 2013 3:49 PM  

the process works like this... They find the weapon... and with the serial number... match it up to the gun store that sold it. They then go to that gun store to find out who they sold it to.

Dunno, Nate. You could be absolutely correct. Or they could be compiling the list and saving it for that right day.

I could be completely wrong on this, but I don't trust the government to do the right thing, or that which legally they are supposed to do.

Anonymous Jake January 16, 2013 3:49 PM  

Nate:

This is correct. however.. its about the most useless database in the world... sense its not searchable at all.

They have to go store by store to try to figure out who owns what.


Two questions if you don't mind:

1) Are the records destroyed after 20 years or given to the feds in some manner? I thought I saw somewhere that if the store closed the records were handed over to the feds as well.

2) Given that info on the form is phoned in for the background check, is there any reason to believe it's not already secretly being stored in a gov. database?

Anonymous Mina January 16, 2013 3:50 PM  

dh January 16, 2013 3:44 PM: that's a big-ass database. had to be Oracle? or something proprietary?

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 3:51 PM  

Do you cats really not see the inconsistency here?

On everything else... you think the government is totally incompetent.. incapable of even handling the most basic tasks without totally screwing it up....

EXCEPT FOR GUN GRABBERISM!!

Oh no... when it comes to gun grabbing the government is ruthlessly efficient and all knowing and all capable. it accurately compiles data and stores it effectively... it uses it efficiently and will be able to match all those data points up in seconds for millions of people!

No.

No. No. No. they are a bunch of morons people. Its a huge bureaucratic monolith that is totally incapable of doing ANYTHING quickly or efficiently.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 3:51 PM  

That doesn't say what you said it did.

1. No reference to today.
2. No reference to the content of the executive orders.
3. No reference to the magazine clips or so-called assault weapons.
4. No reference to Obama disarming Americans.

You were wrong. Moreover, your disingenuous ignoring of the "one brick" strategy doesn't escape everyone. It's not a wall, it's just these 22 bricks we're stacking up over here....


I am being disengious? This is a joke, right?

1. No reference to today.
You linked to an article, by Politico, speculating on the executive orders from today. You also used the word "bypasses". Present tense.

2. No reference to the content of the executive orders.
3. No reference to the magazine clips or so-called assault weapons.
4. No reference to Obama disarming Americans.

Come now. Is this your best work?

The totalitarians don't have the votes to disarm America, so they're going to try to bypass the democratic process by utilizing Obama and a collection of unconstitutional executive orders. TO DO WHAT EXACTLY?

This is the height of dishonesty. Obama did not bypass Congress on anything. Things he's responsible for Executive he has changed. Things that require Congress to change laws, he's put over to Congress to deal with.

You failed. Again.

Anonymous Porky? January 16, 2013 3:52 PM  

FOR TRAYVON!

Anonymous Tad January 16, 2013 3:52 PM  

So, with all the claims that Obama was going to confiscate your weapons, and with not a single proposal of the sort today, I guess those of us that noted the absurdity of these claims of those on the far, far, far right wing were correct...as usual.

How is it in the face of all the evidence, you folks keep claiming the opposite?

You folks Cry Wolf so much that it really should be no surprise that your ILK is never invited to be part of the conversation.

Anonymous RC January 16, 2013 3:52 PM  

except that to be effective you would have to input millions of line of data by hand." - Nate

I am not asserting that they're currently digitizing the 4473, but I would be most surprised if they weren't keeping the background check info that's provided. I understand the 4473 is kept locally but they could be processed and input with OCR at some point downstream. Again, I am NOT stating that the 4473 forms are being kept electronically, I'm merely pointing out that it's not a technologically difficult problem to solve.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 3:53 PM  

1) Are the records destroyed after 20 years or given to the feds in some manner? I thought I saw somewhere that if the store closed the records were handed over to the feds as well.

when the stores close they go to the ATF. Where they are ignored.

2) Given that info on the form is phoned in for the background check, is there any reason to believe it's not already secretly being stored in a gov. database?

The feds don't do the background checks. They are almost always handled on the state level. Thus they are never phoned nor notified.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 3:53 PM  

dh January 16, 2013 3:44 PM: that's a big-ass database. had to be Oracle? or something proprietary?
Oracle 10 on 256 cores.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 3:54 PM  

So, with all the claims that Obama was going to confiscate your weapons, and with not a single proposal of the sort today, I guess those of us that noted the absurdity of these claims of those on the far, far, far right wing were correct...as usual.

Tad, don't be hasty. No one actually said he would do this... it was all just innuendo, mis-understanding, and the like.

Boy do we have egg on OUR faces...

Anonymous Tad January 16, 2013 3:55 PM  

@dh

This is the height of dishonesty. Obama did not bypass Congress on anything. Things he's responsible for Executive he has changed. Things that require Congress to change laws, he's put over to Congress to deal with.

This is correct.

But the most ridiculous claim made here today by Vox Day is that President Obama is " man who seeks to disarm Americans"

There's no evidence for this. More importantly, if we are discussing Vox Day's failures, is that he knows there is no evidence for this claim, yet he still says it.

It goes to credibility and it goes to moral standing.

Anonymous AnonH January 16, 2013 3:55 PM  

At $500 million dollars, we are going to pay for this how?

Is something going to get cut to fund this, are taxes going to go up, or are we going to just borrow to fund this?

Funny how that was never addressed.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 16, 2013 3:56 PM  

They guy has a weird Glock fetish (Sorta like Nate), but the book is a good general resource on many gun topics across the board.

I libeled Nate. Does the 1st Amendment protect me?

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 3:57 PM  

"I libeled Nate. Does the 1st Amendment protect me?"

I thought it was slander?

Anonymous RC January 16, 2013 3:57 PM  

No. No. No. they are a bunch of morons people. Its a huge bureaucratic monolith that is totally incapable of doing ANYTHING quickly or efficiently."

Agreed that they are inefficient but they have enormous resources and an army of private contractors to get the job done. Even the damn Post Office successfully processes a mountain of work each day, probably at 10 to 15% of the efficiency of UPS or FedEx but they get the mail sorted and moved because they are not resource constrained like a private entity.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 16, 2013 3:57 PM  

Tard: "@Josh

"shall not be infringed"

End of debate.

Josh thinks there are no limits on any enumerated rights. "

There are not any enumerated rights. The rights of people are pre-existing, self evident, natural, God given. The Constitution enumerates power, authority, and duties to the described branches of government. Everything else is reserved to the States or The People.

See the BOR, specifically the 9th and 10th amendments. Apparently you have not read or comprehended them.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 3:58 PM  

"Agreed that they are inefficient but they have enormous resources and an army of private contractors to get the job done."

You're suggesting this could be done in secret.

No.

Anonymous Mina January 16, 2013 3:58 PM  

dh January 16, 2013 3:53 PM: Love to bring my saddle by and ride that bad boy! wow~!!

Anonymous Tad January 16, 2013 4:01 PM  

@Patrick

There are not any enumerated rights. The rights of people are pre-existing, self evident, natural, God given. The Constitution enumerates power, authority, and duties to the described branches of government. Everything else is reserved to the States or The People.

If you don't understand the basic meaning of "enumerated rights" in the context of the constitution, then stay out of the way. You are still on the first rung and are just going to intellectually stepped on.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 16, 2013 4:10 PM  

"then stay out of the way. You are still on the first rung and are just going to intellectually stepped on."

Says it all, really. Tad, like all leftists, has these elaborate fantasies of infinite superiority over his stupid sub-human foes. Also, he likes to step on people.

I hear that's a "thing" in certain circles.

The text never means what it says, it only means what the priesthood tells you it means. How did they determine that? Shut up, you're a stupid poopy-head, you don't understand the first thing about the proper interpretation of entrails and flights of birds.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 4:13 PM  

dh January 16, 2013 3:53 PM: Love to bring my saddle by and ride that bad boy! wow~!!
Heh. One I am working on now for an insurance underwriter has lot of more O-1 problems to solve, and has 4000 cores.

Some jackass inventing the phrase "Big Data" has been the best thing to happen to me in a long, long, long time.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 4:15 PM  

The text never means what it says, it only means what the priesthood tells you it means. How did they determine that? Shut up, you're a stupid poopy-head, you don't understand the first thing about the proper interpretation of entrails and flights of birds.

On the other hand, it means what ever an armchair patriot/rebel says it means, and if I feel like I get to start shooting people, because FREEDOM.

Anonymous Starbuck January 16, 2013 4:17 PM  

Tad, dh...

While you are trying to be thought provoking and use human 'reason', you are completely missing the point.

Obama blinked. They hinted at putting the controls on guns through executive order. A lot of gun owners and perhaps some that don't own guns yet went beserk. The entire blogosphere is riddled with people making threats, demanding the gov don't do this, etc. etc.

The line has been drawn. The real people of this country have spoken. The government will not be confiscating their weapons. Not unless the government is willing to fight a civil war over it. People are pissed and determined. These are not the people that receive welfare, these are the people that are taxed to pay for it. They are angry about many things, but taking their guns or any gun control is going over the line.

It might be interesting of New York has the guts or the stupidity to go and enforce their new laws. I double dog dare them to try to confiscate the weapons.

None of this is logical or reasonable. Logic and reasonable debate is over on the issue of gun control. The people have decided. They come take our guns, we kill them. Easy.

People won't obey those new laws. Atleast not in Colorado.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 16, 2013 4:19 PM  

"You are still on the first rung and are just going to intellectually stepped on."

You keep threatening to "step on" all of us poor troglodytic inferiors, yet you never seem to get around to actually, y'know, doing it.

Your version of "intellectually stepping on" people seems to rely mostly on loud and frequent claims of how you have secret magick superior understanding of arcane labyrinthine learned quiddities, but then somehow you never display this awesome power of yours. And when you do show a bit of it, you turn out to be, uh, wrong.

GLENDOWER: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
HOTSPUR: Why, so can I, or so can any man. But... will they come when you do summon them?

Anonymous Edjamacator January 16, 2013 4:23 PM  

It does have a weakness, though, and that weakness, is that sometimes a brick is just a brick. Not all bricks are part of a wall.

I think Pink Floyd might disagree with you there, dh.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 4:23 PM  

"On the other hand, it means what ever an armchair patriot/rebel says it means, and if I feel like I get to start shooting people, because FREEDOM."

Actually you're trying to be a smart ass here... but yes. Exactly. That is the whole point of written law.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 4:24 PM  

Obama blinked. They hinted at putting the controls on guns through executive order. A lot of gun owners and perhaps some that don't own guns yet went beserk. The entire blogosphere is riddled with people making threats, demanding the gov don't do this, etc. etc.
They allegedly hinted at this. Apply the same standard of proof to this allegation as you do to anything you agree with. What do you have to back this up?

The line has been drawn. The real people of this country have spoken. The government will not be confiscating their weapons. Not unless the government is willing to fight a civil war over it. People are pissed and determined. These are not the people that receive welfare, these are the people that are taxed to pay for it. They are angry about many things, but taking their guns or any gun control is going over the line.
The line may have been drawn, I think that is probably true. But guess what - it has nothing to do with Pres. Obama or the government. It has to do with bitterness over losing political power. No one at the Federal level is talking about confiscation. (Caveat: I have not read what was passed in NY yet). Not the most liberal person in Congress, or Pres. Obama. The line is drawn, fine. But it's not drawn in response to an actual threat, it's drawn to idiotic paranoia whipped up by tea leaves reading.

It might be interesting of New York has the guts or the stupidity to go and enforce their new laws. I double dog dare them to try to confiscate the weapons.
I haven't read the law yet, and I try to read all the laws before commenting on them. I will try to read later today. If it calls for confiscation.

People won't obey those new laws. Atleast not in Colorado.
You mean the law passed in NY, or the executive orders made by Pres. Obama today?

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 16, 2013 4:24 PM  

I thought it was slander?

Lander, Slibel, Slander, Libel, Libander, Slandibel.

I'll go with slandibel.

Anonymous Tad January 16, 2013 4:24 PM  

@Scoobious

fantasies of infinite superiority

Not "infinite". But in some realms, unquestionably. Patrick doesn't understand the term "enumerated rights"...and yet it is a term used by the founders during the convention, during ratification, and by scholars, judges and lawyers for 200 years. And all of them know exactly what it means.

Patrick...doesn't get it. Do you?

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 4:25 PM  

Actually you're trying to be a smart ass here... but yes. Exactly. That is the whole point of written law.
Explain?

Anonymous paradox January 16, 2013 4:25 PM  

Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 16, 2013 3:41 PM

Mina (and all others interested),

A great book to buy for general information across the board on guns and related issues is Boston's Gun Bible.

They guy has a weird Glock fetish (Sorta like Nate), but the book is a good general resource on many gun topics across the board.


Yea, he does have a weird 40cal and Glock fetish. I'll take my Glock 17 in 9mm any day, but chambered in 40 or 45 there are really better options than a Glock.

Molon Labe! is also a good fiction read, by Boston. More information though, than an actual entertaining narrative.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 16, 2013 4:26 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Tad January 16, 2013 4:29 PM  

@Starbuck

Obama blinked. They hinted at putting the controls on guns through executive order

Who did? Where? When did Obama hint at this?

The real people of this country have spoken.

Last time I heard the American people speak it was in a presidential election. And we know what they said. You think the majority of Americans are going to oppose a ban on assault weapons, large capacity magazine and gun registration? Really? You don't think these proposals were first tested and polled? Really? I promise you they were. I promise you the proposals that were offered today were extremely well tested with the public.

You guys....and your little echo chamber think you have the pulse of the nation. What you have is the pulse of the tin foil hat folks.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 16, 2013 4:30 PM  

pedant

Anonymous Tad January 16, 2013 4:31 PM  

@Scoobious

You keep threatening to "step on" all of us poor troglodytic inferiors, yet you never seem to get around to actually, y'know, doing it.

You are mistaking shielding your eyes for a the absence of things right in front of you. Patrick is an idiot..."There are no enumerated rights". Do you know how dumb that sounds to anyone who has ever thought to investigate any literature or commentary or judicial decisions or history concerning the Constitution? I do.

Anonymous Mina January 16, 2013 4:34 PM  

dh January 16, 2013 4:13 PM:

dh: Big data is my business, I do massive(TB)/enterprise database/warehouse architecture and am currently working as an underling on a large SAN (EMC, IBM, Celerra, netApp, Clariion, etc) team to learn more about that technology to bring back to the database world. My next move/jump might be into "Cloud technology" - you'll recognize this as integrated sets of stuff we all know and love given a new moniker to make it "new" ;-)

Are you blogging any of your technical data/experiences anywhere? We might not occupy the same political or philosophical page but you've got your fingers in some interesting stuff I'd love to see.

Anonymous Edjamacator January 16, 2013 4:34 PM  

Last time I heard the American people speak it was in a presidential election.

Some of them multiple times. Obama certainly is the king of fools and fraud. Keep dancing to his tune and maybe you can be his jester someday. Dare to dream.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 16, 2013 4:36 PM  

"Patrick doesn't understand the term "enumerated rights"..."

If I enumerate a bunch of items on my grocery list, then that is just the list of enumerated stuff that I intend to buy today when I go to Whole Foods. It doesn't mean I can never buy anything else ever again, except for what's on my "enumerated" list.

But if I enumerate a bunch of things in a contract, stipulating what I will do and not do, under a given set of circumstances, and what my compensation will be or not be for same, then that is a different matter.

"Enumerate". Huh.

English is a funny tongue, wouldn't you agree?


Blogger Giraffe January 16, 2013 4:38 PM  

You think the majority of Americans are going to oppose a ban on assault weapons, large capacity magazine and gun registration? Really?

No. The people that own guns will oppose it. There are enough that will not comply and there are too many of them to just run over. They might be a minority, but they are the only ones whose opinion matters on this issue.

You don't think these proposals were first tested and polled? Really? I promise you they were. I promise you the proposals that were offered today were extremely well tested with the public.

Hell no. There is nothing there. Obama just proposed that the sun come up tomorrow.

Anonymous Mina January 16, 2013 4:43 PM  

Agree with Nate: the Government is far too inept at handling such large quantities of disparate data to use the background check data as a gun registry. Especially when you know most of this data is hard copy (not electronic.) No way, totally laughable.

They could fantasize that they might someday. They will never get there.

They exhibit their inability to manage all sorts of things that are exponentially many times simpler than this - why would we believe that in this one case suddenly they are like Zorro?

No.

... now on the other hand if something that IT wizards could conjure up at the local level that would provide the database-to-database transmission minus the intrusion of human error into the massize, quadri-parellel Oracle database in Washington - that's another story. The Government ain't gonna come up with that, not in our lifetime. That stuff only exists in movies. I don't believe for a minute that our Government is capable of any of it in real life.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 4:45 PM  

"Actually you're trying to be a smart ass here... but yes. Exactly. That is the whole point of written law.
Explain?'

Sure.

Written law is a critical aspect of civilization. The law is to be written in a plain manner so that literally everyone knows what it says and what it means. This provides consistency and transparency.

you cannot have a free civilization if a small number of folks can claim that only they know what the law says and means.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 4:46 PM  

Are you blogging any of your technical data/experiences anywhere? We might not occupy the same political or philosophical page but you've got your fingers in some interesting stuff I'd love to see.

Hmm. I am but there isn't a really practical way for me to get you there without contaminating a professional operation to something I do in my own time.

I primarily work in large-set spatial analysis, in aerospace/defense, insurance, and anti-fraud.

And don't be fooled, we may not be as far apart as you think. I almost posted earlier, but I used to own a Bushmaster AR-15. I lived a few miles from a plant for a while, and got to know some people who worked there. Pretty cool operation.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 4:46 PM  

you cannot have a free civilization if a small number of folks can claim that only they know what the law says and means.

I agree. Thanks.

Anonymous Mina January 16, 2013 4:47 PM  

A reminder about this prescient post from "tad" earlier in the thread (January 16, 2013 1:29 PM):

Paid-for troll comment designed to disrupt what might otherwise be a productive discussion.

Anyone get the joke yet?

Anonymous DT January 16, 2013 4:51 PM  

Hell no. There is nothing there. Obama just proposed that the sun come up tomorrow.

No. He proposed that the CDC study the potential impact of the sun coming up tomorrow. He also mandated that Federal agencies share information about the sun coming up tomorrow, and provided incentives to schools to teach students about Earth's rotation and the sun.

How can you not respect a man of action like our president?

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 4:54 PM  

You were wrong. Moreover, your disingenuous ignoring of the "one brick" strategy doesn't escape everyone. It's not a wall, it's just these 22 bricks we're stacking up over here....

I re-read everything you posted about gun-control in the last 3-days, and I agree, I was wrong. You did not explicitly say that Obama was going to try to disarm people by executive order, or ban guns by executive order.

You have however made the inference that Obama would do things by executive order - "Bypass congress" with the goal of disarming America. Do you agree that's fair?

As far as bricks go, it is a good analogy. However, the same analogy could be used if substituted with a new end in mind. If the goal is not disarming, but rather, stopping gun violence, it's quite a different analogy, isn't it?

For all your crying about the supposed attempt to take away the guns of Americans, there is nothing - not a single shred of anything - to suggest or point you or anyone to think that this is actual goal of Pres. Obama. It is 100% inferred by you.

It's hard to discuss this topic in a rational way when your position is more extreme than anything even being discused anywhere else. It's miles to the right of CATO, NRA, just about any other right-wing blog. It's also difficult to discuss rationally because of your radicial view of what is legitimate resistance to government policy you don't agree with.

Anonymous Elmer (just plain ole Elmer, ya know, like in yogert) January 16, 2013 4:56 PM  

And, I'm not letting Alex Jones off the hook as well:

posted an update in the group Ask Alex

Dammit Alex! Start reporting on this please: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/06/roadmap-to-redressing-economic-terrorism-in-america-archival-by-demand/ This is not a hoax. This is not a fraud. Please contact Marilyn Barnewall for an interview soon.http://theglobalnewsandviews.com/ You have had Gerald Celente et al one too many times on your program. Time for some REAL information for a change. I have also informed LRC et al on this. No one can no longer claim ignorance on this. Time for this ”conspiracy of silence” to end, and put America back to work…



This pisses me off to no end. I'm not supposed to be informing the likes of Alex Jones and LRC et al. They are supposed to be informing me et al. There is a "conspiracy of silence" here. And, it must end now!

Vox, you were asking earlier (a few threads back) about documentation. Might I suggest you go to Gordon Duff:

To stop this from moving forward, Wanta was kidnapped and jailed, court cases involving the top lawyers in the United States have gone on for 6 years and millions have been spent to either keep this out of the press or misrepresent facts that exist on enough legal documents to fill a Fed Ex van.

Vox, you need to contact Ms. Barnewall for a personal interview to be posted at VP. This will be the most important interview you have ever done. [1] It is like Duff states:

As most of what I am writing is probably classified, let’s pretend I am making this all up. [emphasis mine]

Barnewall will reiterate the same as Duff. What she is doing is very, very dangerous. But, it must be done...

Oh, BTW, re: this thread and the "list of fantasies" by our current POTUS:

(from Duff)

I had Wanta checked out.

To do that, I went to a top army intelligence officer from the Pentagon, one who had been Defense Attache to Israel and who had worked in Special Operations, war plans, clandestine operations and such since he was an A Team leader in Vietnam. I put him on with Wanta for hours and had Wanta interrogated.

Wanta knew dozens of the highest classified operations in US history, knew every Pentagon official including much highly detailed personal information. To our top Army intelligence officer, we were able to confirm that he was, unquestioningly, working for years at the highest levels of US intelligence.

The man who grilled him still hangs up the phone whenever I mention 9/11, a close personal friend of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.


What more needs to be said here? Everyone here, stop your bickering and intellectual gymnastics over trivial matters, that will not be solved until enough people are put back to work. Stop giving the elites credit, where credit is not due. [2] Start focusing on this most important matter. The more people informed, will eventually bring this to critical mass...



--------
[1] You will probably never get an interview with Wanta himself. Barnewall is his official biographer and spokesman. She will reiterate that. It is too dangerous for anyone to have direct contact with this man, as things are at present.

[2] I think I can in both quantifiable and qualifiable terms claim I know more about these elites than anyone else here. Anyone here wish to challenge me on that? Only the likes of Gordon Duff et al, can top me on that matter. I simply do not have the security clearance he does at present, nor know people he does.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 4:57 PM  

"I agree. Thanks."

I think it pays to remember that armed rebellion isn't something the founders were particularly put off by.

they viewed it as a necessary price to pay for liberty. Jefferson even wrote that it may have to happen every generation or so.

rednecks and hillbillies taking up arms and shouting "FREEDOM!" isn't at all something that would bother them.

well...

except Hamilton.. but he was a huge dick.

Anonymous dh January 16, 2013 4:59 PM  

I think it pays to remember that armed rebellion isn't something the founders were particularly put off by.

they viewed it as a necessary price to pay for liberty. Jefferson even wrote that it may have to happen every generation or so.


Right. None of them afriad to steamrollover such rebellions, either. They were plenty happy to suppress it using violence.

Blogger James Dixon January 16, 2013 5:01 PM  

> But the most ridiculous claim made here today by Vox Day is that President Obama is " man who seeks to disarm Americans" ... There's no evidence for this.

Is Obama a democrat? Hmm, last time I checked, yes. QED.

Anonymous BillB January 16, 2013 5:03 PM  

Nate said:

if obama wanted to he could legally end the import of .223 ammo into the country. He can do that any time he wants with a stroke of his pen. Prices would sky rocket. you couldn't get it if you had the money to pay for it.

Nate: Please provide citation of authority.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2013 5:05 PM  

"Nate: Please provide citation of authority."

Tariffs mate. they are administrated by the executive branch.

1 – 200 of 242 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts