loadedliberal wrote:I have to say seeing a post like this makes me seriously question peoples intelligence and critical thinking ability. The paranoia of "obamas gonna take our guns" is the same that was heard during the Clinton administration. The President had so far done nothing to limit gun right in fact he said he supported the recent supreme court descion that overturned DCs gun ban. The arguments are counterproductive and damage the credibly of the people making the who I believe are good, albeit misguided people.
What you have written here makes me think the same way about you. Our liberty is always one generation away from being extinguished by tyrants, well meaning as they may be. Surely you are familiar with the aphorism "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom"?
I've lived 63 years. I can remember when you could walk in to the local Western Auto and buy any gun you wanted to. Can you do that now? I can remember when I could buy any type of light bulb that I wanted to, get whatever size flush toilet struck my fancy and smoke anywhere I felt like. My father-in-law remembers when you didn't have to have a license to drive a car and you didn't have to be sixteen to do it either. I remember when it wasn't against the law to drive without a seat belt. I remember when there was no US Department of Education and school decisions were handled locally. I can remember when there was no EPA that could decide the the byproduct of breathing was a pollutant.
Now, you can argue that those are all good things and should be done, but you cannot deny that they take away our liberty to decide for ourselves how we will live our lives. Government intrudes more and more into our lives all the time. The politicians that pass these laws think they are doing the right thing (for the most part - there are some that know exactly what they are doing.) But the end result is that we have less liberty, are more controlled by our government and are more likely to become lawbreakers merely by living our lives.
The Obama administration has already agreed in principle to the UN Arms Treaty. Yes, it would have to be ratified by the Senate, but that's not the point. Merely agreeing in principle to such a treaty is an admission that the current administration does not believe in the sovereignty of the US or the sanctity of our Constitution. Why? Because in order to comply with the treaty, as proposed, the US would have to require that every firearm in the US be registered and every sale of a firearm be recorded.
With Presidents from both parties ruling more and more by fiat (so-called Executive Orders), the danger of the power of the Presidency being misused is exponentially increased. With increasing numbers of people dependent upon the Federal government for their daily subsistence (in the form of "entitlements" such as food stamps, aid to dependent children, etc., etc.) the pool of people willing and able to resist a government takeover continues to shrink.
If you don't find these to be danger signals that need to be heeded, then I can only attribute it to a dangerous naivete.
shame.
, after it had been proven to be totally ineffective for ten years. The reason it was ineffective is that it targeted something that was not a problem.