Progressives and gun control

Posted by $ TomB666 10 years, 4 months ago to Government
57 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Progressives tend to see the world as they think it ought to be rather than as it is. That leads them to think they can find a magic solution to any problem and legislate it.

They themselves are hypocritical about it. For example, Warren Buffet wants higher tax rates he says, because he pays less then his secretary. If that were really the problem all he has to do is fire the CPAs he has hired to minimize his taxes, and send a bigger check. Nothing stops him from paying more tax.

The issue of gun control* is a great example of the hypocrisy of the progressive elite. Michael Bloomberg tries his best to keep ordinary citizens from having firearms while surrounding himself with armed body guards. Does he think he needs protecting but you and I do not?

We have to work with what we have. People are an enormously diverse lot. Most are what we consider “good”, but many are not. That is reality. Why there are bad people is not the question. What to do about them is. Paraphrasing something attributed to Jesus: The bad will always be with us. Laws should be based on the reality of mankind rather then anybody's idea of how we should be.**

As long as some people feel the need to be able to defend themselves, there will be firearms. Why not make it easy for law-abiding people to defend themselves while making it harder for criminals?


* “Gun control defined: The theory that criminals who are willing to ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft, and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm.” http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/super-mo...

** I realize I am wishing something that will never be because people who make laws keep trying to mold the world rather then regulate what is.


All Comments

  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yeah, he is weird, and his actions speak louder than his words (what you said). Perhaps he said this simply to gain access to a liberal congressman. Fortunately, we won't have to listen to his hypocrisy, or vain attempt to gain access to heaven, much longer.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And she, on a dollar-per-dollar basis, undoubtedly created more job than he did, right?

    But I still think that anything and everything Buffet does is driven by his own love of money and that's his primary driver... not what he says in his many self-deprecating or 'aw shucks' articles and quotations.

    :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, I looked it up. He paid ~$6.3M in taxes. She might've paid $20K. Of course he used or benefited 300x more from Government services right?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thoritsu, I think this is a misconception parroted and spread by the mainscream media as a means of dividing Americans even more and more...

    While Buffet may have said 'I pay less taxes than my secretary,' that's very unlikely unless virtually all of his 'income' is shielded from "INCOME tax bites" in the first place (thank the same government for ENACTING those loopholes, btw...) or he might have really meant that his income Tax RATE is lower than that of his secretary and none of the mainscream media morons can think far enough to imagine that the number of DOLLARS he pays in taxes is probably a lot higher than the number of DOLLARS his secretary is on the hook for.

    In either case, yep, if he thinks he's 'undertaxed,' he can damned well pay more freely, but hasn't given us any proof he's doing that, or he could lobby for flat-rate income taxes based on ALL sources of Income (salary, stock option exercises, and all other kinds of compensation), so there would be NO WAY he could pay 'less taxes than his secretary"!

    Now, I don't hear of him doing either such thing, so I have concluded that the Red H of Hypocrisy should hang around HIS neck.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    ... all enemies, foreign and domestic ... Therein lies the problem. A despotic P can designate those who oppose them as "domestic enemies."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ranter 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is a situation, I believe, in which the state's National Guard could come into play under the control of the Governor. Until now, we have handled such situations using the local police and the FBI, although the National Guard got involved in the hunt for the Boston Bomber.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    as a retired usaf LtCol, I wonder how one should
    reconcile the situation when the enemy is a
    domestic terrorist....... -- j

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 3 months ago
    gun control is being able to hit your target, like, say,
    Chris Kyle ....... with one shot?! -- j

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    From a Cryptoquote puzzle of just a day or so ago...

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.
    --- H.L. Mencken."

    Going on my home page tonight...
    Just another Obama/Krugman Memorial Quotation...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ah, selling Hope (and Change)... sounds like a familiar failed marketing program of some years back....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 years, 3 months ago
    I do not understand what nonsense Warren Buffet is describing. Have you heard of Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)? Once you hit a certain income level, you are screwed. I have no idea what this all about, but what ever tricks they are employing, I need some.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ranter 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    For the record: a military office does not take an oath to be loyal to the government. The oath is one to the Constitution. Here is the wording:

    "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). So help me God may be omitted.

    Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a member of the military is to obey all LAWFUL orders. A member of the military may not be punished for disobeying an unlawful order (for instance, to shoot at civilians, foreign or domestic).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is known as either protective custody or jail/ prison. How long do you think there is going to be a difference between the two when the choice goes away?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In the interest of full disclosure, I will confess to being a retired USAF Major. That is a relatively low rank for an officer to retire in, but I am not unhappy because I started as an E1, the lowest possible rank of enlisted. That said, as I neared the end of my 25 years I noticed more and more that promotion to flag rank (General or Admiral) was about two things. First never be caught making a mistake, and second kiss the ass of every body with more rank and/or political pull. In my opinion most of the generals who served under Clinton were wishy-washy suck ups.. A few did retire early rather then betray their oaths and I have the highest respect for those generals. Others were all about getting another star.

    I write this because I think the vast majority of military members are completely loyal the the US and take the oath of office seriously. The oath for both officers and enlisted includes the phrase “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Generals comprise a very small part of the military – in the US Air Force in 1988 out of about 400,000 only 400 were generals.

    The military force we all need to be concerned with is the one Obama is creating as a domestic army – sort of like Hitler's brown shirts. Watch out for the losers wearing a TSA uniforms.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo