Progressives and gun control

Posted by  $  TomB666 2 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.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by RobMorse 2 years, 4 months ago
    The people who want control of others don't sell gun-control. They sell the hope of peace. 23 thousand gun control laws later, there is no peace. That means they get to sell hope again and again to the fools who will buy it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Susanne 2 years, 4 months ago
    I found it amazingly poignant that Dianne Feinstein had the only CCW permit issued in the City and County of San Francisco, because, well, to quote her own words, from a hearing at which she was testifying...

    "When I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick, I carried a concealed weapon," she said. "I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out I was going to take them with me. ...."

    Just shows the sense of radical self-entitlement of one of the people working hard to take your rights away...

    BTW - she says gave it up in 2012. The question being - as a Senator, does she carry "regimental" and figure as the high and privileged no one would *dare* infringe on *her* second amendment rights as she wishes to infringe upon yours, or does she merely employ a cadre of armed guards to protect herself under the color of the "Oh, How shocking, I would *never* have a firearm!" clause?

    Just because she used the murder of a mayor and city councilman to propel herself into a huge political career...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ranter 2 years, 4 months ago
    Gun control is necessary in order for a government to be able to control its people. However, the founding fathers adopted the second amendment to make sure that the government of the United States would never be able to control its people. The people should control the government, not the other way around.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 2 years, 4 months ago
    While our constitution protects the right to be a fool it does not protect one from the consequences of being a fool. Gun control is an example of foolishness and an agenda by those that fear an armed populace. Liberals fear armed citizens because they are a threat to the tyranny the "progressives" want to establish.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Zenphamy 2 years, 4 months ago
    Tom; The 2nd states unequivocally 'shall not be infringed'. You create, or at least buy into, a serious problem when you say 'law abiding people' should have it easy to defend themselves, but imply that 'non-law abiding people' have a more difficult time in defending themselves.

    By holding to that position, you immediately permit those that want to control, to ignore 'shall not be infringed' and begin to make and expand inroads on the gun control front. And since you now have allowed 'some infringement', all the gun control crowd has to do now is make more things illegal, a bigger umbrella if you will, to further restrict 'law abiding people' who can have guns. Your approach will eventually lead to no fully law abiding people with guns.

    The answer is as the founders intended. Government has no business nor privilege to interfere in the natural right of self defense.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jlc 2 years, 4 months ago
    I am against gun control. But I have a different perspective on this matter: I think that gun control is a litmus test, not a functional parameter.

    Situation #1. If 100% of the US civilians owned guns and the US gov decided to take over and impose military rule and they were willing to go to any lengths to do so - How much good would privately owned guns do against tanks and nukes?

    Situation #2. If no civilians owned guns and the US decided to impose military rule - how long would it take for US civilians to own military equipment? After all, if I can shoot soldier with a bow and arrow, then I have his guns. Then I shoot another soldier with the first guy's guns and now You have a gun too. etc.

    Situation #3. India successfully revolted against the British Empire without armed superiority. They just refused to do what they were ordered to do.

    I have deliberately set up some extreme scenarios, but please bear with me a moment. Firstly, I do have more confidence than many of you do in the military. I think that US troops told to fire on US civilians would stop doing so pretty darn soon (if they did it at all). It is not the members (or ex-) of the military who are proponents of gun control and liberalism.

    What I think gun control is about is 'the feeling of helplessness' and the willingness to 'let daddy take care of it all.

    When the American public is willing to be castratos and turn over their cojones and guns to the government, it means that people have forgotten freedom. If people want to be free, then whether or not we have guns is not going to matter: we WILL be free. If we want to be free, then the military will side with US, not with the government. If we want to be free, then we will not obey the commands of the people who want to make serfs of us. There is no more stubborn a country of black sheep than the USA. If we set our wills to do something - we will do it.

    But if we loose our will, if we do not want to be free...if freedom is no longer important to us, then having guns will not make difference. And the willingness to have our guns taken away from us is an indication that we have reached that point.

    Jan
    (Wanting to remind folks that I was the one who posted about Total Resistance by von Dach. I am not saying that bow and arrow is more effective than a gun or that guerrilla action is not effective.)

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 2 years, 4 months ago
      First, there are a significant number of citizens who posses fire arms who would not use them against gov't tyranny (not all hunters are liberty lovers - merely lovers of hunting).
      Second, you are probably right about the active duty military, but there are significant swaths of the upper echelon that have been culled in the past few years. One wonders about how much the remaining military hierarchy values their oath (seems the politicians don't value it very much).
      Third, the current admin has expanded the militarization of all aspects of executive alphabet soup agencies. To whom will these quasi-military forces be loyal? They do not swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and depend on their livelihood from gov't.
      Fourth, a significant portion of those owning fire arms have already self-identified - whether through some form of registration, back-ground check, purchase of ammo via credit card, or even registering for a hunting license. Those forms of identification will be used to confiscate the weapons when it comes time.
      Fifth, I do believe in gun-control. A firm grip, proper sight picture, and controlled breathing is critical in hitting what you want. ;-)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  2 years, 4 months ago
        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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Ranter 2 years, 4 months ago
        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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by johnpe1 2 years, 4 months ago
          as a retired usaf LtCol, I wonder how one should
          reconcile the situation when the enemy is a
          domestic terrorist....... -- j

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 2 years, 4 months ago
            ... all enemies, foreign and domestic ... Therein lies the problem. A despotic P can designate those who oppose them as "domestic enemies."
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Ranter 2 years, 4 months ago
            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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 2 years, 4 months ago
    Sometimes, I think people forget how one crazy with a gun can rule and intimidate a hundred without a gun. We often hear "the cream rises to the top" meaning that the best will come out ahead. It's also true about good and bad. Given a level playing field, the good will triumph. But, in the last fifty years or so, the good have been caste as the villains as the bad wins out. It reminds me of the end of "The Bridge On The River Kwai," when the character seeing the result of the mayhem all around simply says, "Madness, madness."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 years, 4 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  plusaf 2 years, 4 months ago
      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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 2 years, 4 months ago
    Too many Progressives (wannabe control freak Marxisits) is a good reason to both own and know how to safely and accurately shoot at least one gun.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bradberry1984 2 years, 4 months ago
    In your last comment I would have used the word "CONTROL" rather than "Mold". Since really that is their ultimate goal is control us. However it is true that they want to mold us with the ultimate control over us.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 2 years, 4 months ago
    Because the illogical/irrational believe that they can legislate things out of existence. This is a fallacy that they cannot comprehend, as evidenced in the need they themselves see to have those same protections used to their benefit. This is merely another example of how some animals are more equal than others.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 2 years, 4 months ago
    Earned income is taxed at a higher rate than dividends (up to 40% vs 15%), it's always been that way because it encourages saving and investment and grows the economy more than buying a new pair of shoes does. Buffet says that BS but it's only because he takes the lion's share of his income in Berkshire stock and it's very high dividend. He pays a lot, it's just a smaller percentage of presumably much more money than he pays his secretary, he just intends to mislead with that statement and Dems are good for Berkshire business... Trains hauling oil because no pipelines being built, cheap furniture, and mostly consumer stuff other than NetJets. He's not into defense technology that I know of (always does well with Republican leadership).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by woodlema 2 years, 4 months ago
      What does that have to do with Gun Control? Next if you have an issue with tax rates BLAME THE GOVERNMENT NOT THE PEOPLE FOLLOWING THE RULES OF GOVERNMENT!!!!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by scojohnson 2 years, 4 months ago
        Half the write-up above was about how Buffet gripes that he pays less than his secretary in taxes.

        On gun control, I have a collection of over 100 firearms (military, assault, historical, and cowboy levers), I have no interest in gun control... although I do believe reasonable measures are needed to keep society operating in a relatively smooth fashion... (bans on felons owning firearms or severely mentally ill are fine with me). Beyond that, the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed" and its rather hard to figure out a place for gun control within that language. Felons give up their rights... as does an active duty soldier while on-duty for example and business owners are free to not allow open-carry in their place of business in my opinion (it's their business/property/choice). Mental illness can blur the lines of understanding and perception between right & wrong, something the founding fathers wouldn't have understood and can be a factor of our cities and people in close-quarters compared to everyone having 250 or 1000 acres at the time of the founding.

        I'm about a 90/10 against any form of gun control you can say.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by woodlema 2 years, 4 months ago
          If buffet was REALLY complaining he can ALWAYS send in money to the IRS any time he wants.


          http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/
          How do you make a gift to reduce debt held by the public?
          If you wish to do so, make a check payable to “Bureau of the Public Debt.” You can send it to: Bureau of the Public Debt, Department G, P.O. Box 2188, Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188. Or you can enclose the check with your income tax return when you file.

          Tip: You may be able to deduct this gift on your 2006 tax return.

          According to the most recent IRS Data Book, last year 48 taxpayers mailed in contributions to reduce the public debt, for a total of exactly $21,179. That's $441 per gift. Since 1982, there have been a total of 16,122 voluntary contributions to reduce the debt, for a grand total of $9.8 million—or about 0.00012 percent of the nation's public debt of $8,367,661,575,868 as of March 29, 2006 according to the U.S. Treasury.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jimslag 2 years, 4 months ago
    I will get rid of my guns when Bloomberg gets rid of his security guards. Until then, well, I cannot afford the private security like him so I am my own security. If he doesn't like it, oh well. Let him and I sit down, face to face and discuss the situation. No security detail or witnesses and I believe he will begin to see the light. Out here in flyover country, with no big city close by, there are dangers. Coyotes (animals not transporters of illegals), wild boar hogs, bobcats (again animals not machines), wolves and rabid skunks, take your pick and none of them are nice. Some require only a 22, others require a little more firepower. I would like for Bloomer to come up against a wild boar hog and see how he feels about gun control after that.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Susanne 2 years, 4 months ago
      I won't. He can have his goons - or not. Doesn't matter to me one whit, nor my stance on guns. It's be like giving up my printer and keyboard - that ain't gonna happen either.

      At the time they were enacted, much as today, the bill of rights were enacted. What the anti-American nutballs like Bloomberg regret is there are people who (a) took civics in High School, and (b) choose not to forget history, that (c) keep people of their ilk from having absolute power over we the people... while they demand the American Citizenry cower in manufactured fear to the point of giving up their rights for alleged (and non-existant) security, some of us really are not fond of a return to the leadership style of King George III... or some Corsican named Buonaparte...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo