"Pause for Safety" gun confiscation act

[gringo pistolero]

I think that indicating that the American government leadership is actively seeking bloodshed to promote their policy is one heck of a statement.

I agree but I don't think anybody on this forum other than you is propping up that straw man.

Personally, I don't think Stalin was actively seeking bloodshed for the sake of bloodshed. However, he didn't seem especially shy about using force when and to the extent he thought it was necessary to promote his policy. The same has been true for every communist regime in modern history.

[cb1000rider]

I have no defense of Stalin, or any other communist or true socialist type government. You guys are correctly calling those spades for what they are.

I'll defend myself against the indication of a straw-man argument however. How am I misrepresenting VM's take? If he wasn't indicating that parts of the American government are actively seeking some sort of domestic blood-letting to push an anti-gun agenda, then I am presenting a straw-man. I read those statements as literal, not figurative. And I even asked if he really believed what he was saying... He's very intelligent - so I'm going to ask when a statement like that is made. And he had some quotes to back it up.

I've got no doubts that portions of the American government have an anti-gun agenda. That's absolutely true. But encouraging domestic fire-arm related violence to get it.. If that is true, then I want to know about it. That's just nuts.

If it's just a little political theater and over-the top, I get it... But I'd want to hear that from him.

Some people really do believe stuff like that. And some repeat it and take it seriously.

[VMI77]

It just occurred to me to respond in a different way.....Fast and Furious. They, the leadership, sold guns to Mexican drug cartels. They not only knew that bloodshed would result, that was the whole point, in order to facilitate their anti-gun agenda.

For me, this is conspiracy theory and I don't think the sky is falling. And I get it - you can make it fit that way. Isn't it much more likely that this was a segment of the government trying to track the flow of guns to Mexico and they seriously boon-dogged it up? In other words, to me, it's much more likely that the government is simply incompetent versus having some uber-puppet master pulling strings to intentionally create more violence and pass anti-gun legislation? Is this a pretty good summary of what you're suggesting?


Sure, it's not impossible, but I need you to show me the strings before I jump to that kind of conclusion.
And before someone asks, I can't prove that there isn't a puppet master.

I'm not suggesting the presence of a puppet master or a conspiracy....at least not in the sense you're suggesting. How many "news" sources in this country are pro-gun? Is it a conspiracy that the news media is 99% anti-gun? What you have is a group of people who gravitate towards a profession that is filled with other like minded people. Noam Chomsky, no conservative, has a detailed explanation of how this works in his book "Manufacturing Consent." No one has to hold meetings or give orders because they all believe the same things.

It's possible Fast and Furious was due to incompetence, but testimony of ATF agents seems to suggest otherwise......that the guns were released and no attempt was made to trace or track them. I'm not saying that The One or even Holder said, hey ATF, send guns into Mexico and let's get some people killed so we can use that politically for gun control. What I am saying is that at the highest level it was approved knowing what the results would be bloodshed, because even if the followup was perfect, people were going to get killed with those guns before they could arrest the perps or round up the guns. At best, this was indifference to how their actions would affect the lives of others they obviously didn't consider important. Practically speaking, being pro bloodshed or indifferent to bloodshed is pretty much the same.

Meanwhile, the administration is not only refusing to enforce immigration law, it is encouraging illegal immigration. The open borders that result enable the drug cartels and facilitate their "business." Drug cartels sell drugs but they produce bloodshed. It's not rocket science....if they're not pro-bloodshed why aren't they stopping the drug cartels at the border?

OK, tell me how these policies are a drastic shift from the Regan administration? We had less border protection then and allowed a period of "amnesty'" - which the current Democratic administration is trying to trigger again. Even if you don't like the border policy, Obama has substantially increased border security staffing... Although there seems to be some border patrol guards that are running pretty loose with the law.

Not sure what you mean by BP agents running loose. According the the association that represents BP agents they are being prevented by the administration from enforcing the law.

I can tell you exactly why we don't secure the border. It has nothing to do with a policy trying to take firearms from Americans. It has everything to do with protecting the businesses that fund politicians. Industries survive and thrive on that labor, so that keeps us looking the other way. And pretty soon, if the Republican party doesn't adjust and our demographics keep shifting, the majority of the population will want that border to be more open... Not less.

To me, this is a very dumb issue. We're again polarized by the loud extreme sides. And that prevents a realistic discussion on how we could solve it and prop up our economy.

I'm not a Reagan fan. He betrayed conservative/libertarian principles on at least two major decisions and his actions have cost the country dearly. 1) He cut an amnesty deal, a supposedly one time only amnesty, and future illegal immigration was in turn supposed to be stopped with increased border security. Not only did the amnesty encourage more illegal immigration the border security was never implemented. 2) He signed off on a tax cut deal that was supposed to include significant spending cuts. The spending cuts never happened thereby putting us on the road to ever increasing debt. And let's not forget, in spite of his supposed toughness, he got about 300 Marines killed in Lebanon due to the ridiculous ROE that left Marine sentries with unloaded weapons.

As far as why we don't secure the border, I agree. When Reagan got the Bill that was supposed to improve border security it was watered down at the behest of corporate interests, and these rent seekers are the ones pushing for more illegals, and it's driving down wages and taking jobs for the poorest Americans.

They're calling 2nd Amendment supporters domestic terrorists and just launched a new task force to deal with them. How come they're not devoting resources to eliminating gang violence? Gang violence isn't domestic terrorism but supporting the Constitution is? They can spy on law abiding citizens but not gang bangers? They can lock down a whole city for one murdering nut job but they can't come down on MS-13?

They've condition the "sheeple" to respond to the word "terrorist". So now any administration or political faction can use that word for their own purpose. After all, who would stand up and support a "terrorist"? You can't have a rational discussion about it. You can't debate it. It's not just gun issues, it's any polarizing issue in America that has ever been associated with any type of violence.

Again, I agree.

[mamabearCali]

I did not choose to rehash the whole case, just the summary. She got two years *this time because she refused to agree to never do it again. The judge also decided that he knew better than God several times, nice.

My point was it is not a bastion of hope and joy there in Canada. I don't think I want to live there. If someone does I say go ahead, but lets not turn this nation into Canada.

[anygunanywhere]

I think VMI77's statement is accurate. The progressive leadership is well aware that they will not be the ones who force their dictate down our throats. It will be the front line men and women who are tasked to do it. The progressive leadership are cowards and are blind to what is on the horizon if they do not stop.

Anygunanywhere

This is not the same as indicating that they're pro-bloodshed.

Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring history does not mean that they do not know that their actions will not lead to bloodshed. The multiple national government alphabet agency SWAT teams are there for a reason.

BO may look like a clown, but his administration is comprised of soulless communists who know full well that eventually to reach their goal there MUST be bloodshed. There is no avoiding it. It is as sure as night follows day.

Anygunanywhere

[cb1000rider]

VM,
Thanks for making that clear.. That's a lot more reasonable than the way I was processing it at first. I agree with pretty much everything you said above.. I was just a bit taken aback if you thought that parts of the American government were promoting gun violence as a way to pass an anti-gun agenda.

Personally, I think that thanks to the media attention, if you want to get some attention in the US, we all know how to do it. Frequency of incidents is going to stay at the current level - or maybe increase. I just don't remember it being like this 20 or 30 years ago. And all this attention is bad for the 2nd amendment.

mamabearCali, Yea.. Canada is far from utopia.. And you point out some of the downfalls of socialized medicine. Seems like we either go there or continue a trend of healthcare that almost no one can afford in the future.

[mamabearCali]

There are good options on healthcare. However no one has the courage to do it. My family really liked our healthcare as it was till a year ago. We had a low premium high deductible with a HSA card. Took care of our needs quite nicely. We like choosing what healthcare we received and who we received it from. Our premium went up significantly and our deductible went up even more this past year. It is worrisome for certain.

I bet most families would do just fine with what we had. If you wanted more coverage you could get it but of course it was more $$ out of pocket. There more options than the elites want to consider. They are most assuredly receiving healthy contributions from Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies I am certain.

[K.Mooneyham]

SNIP

Personally, I think that thanks to the media attention, if you want to get some attention in the US, we all know how to do it. Frequency of incidents is going to stay at the current level - or maybe increase. I just don't remember it being like this 20 or 30 years ago. And all this attention is bad for the 2nd amendment.

You are welcome to go look at the FBI violent crime stats, they are there for anyone to see. There were more killings and other violent crimes in years past, peaking in the early 90's. Even as the numbers of violent crimes, to include shootings, has fallen, the attention the media has given to those incidents has risen. One can say it's because "if it bleeds, it leads", and is only motivated by lust for ratings. But if that is so, why so little coverage of the worst of the violence and shootings in big cities done by gangs?

[TexasGal]

We already have re-education camps on a massive scale. It's the public school system. Your children come out of it rejecting your moral values and especially your political values. They have been taught to embrace the far left view and feel contempt and even hate for anyone who does not see it as the only way to go. My son and step-son are leftists. We try to stay off political discussions because the stuff that comes out of their mouths makes me physically ill. My stepson even said once that we needed a great plague to wipe out most of mankind so the planet could recover from all the damage we have done to it. And we needed to do away with "big oil" and if it meant widespread hunger and joblessness to force people to walk and bike instead of drive cars, then so be it. There is a profound belief that it does not matter how many would suffer as long as the ends were achieved. Public school and college is where they got these beliefs. They were re-educated faster than their parents and grandparents could educate them.

[TomsTXCHL]

We already have re-education camps on a massive scale. It's the public school system. Your children come out of it rejecting your moral values and especially your political values. They have been taught to embrace the far left view and feel contempt and even hate for anyone who does not see it as the only way to go. My son and step-son are leftists. We try to stay off political discussions because the stuff that comes out of their mouths makes me physically ill. My stepson even said once that we needed a great plague to wipe out most of mankind so the planet could recover from all the damage we have done to it. And we needed to do away with "big oil" and if it meant widespread hunger and joblessness to force people to walk and bike instead of drive cars, then so be it. There is a profound belief that it does not matter how many would suffer as long as the ends were achieved. Public school and college is where they got these beliefs. They were re-educated faster than their parents and grandparents could educate them.

Great post.

I would only add that in addition to our school systems having become "re-education camps" in the last 20-30 years, government expansion and the taxes required to pay for it have helped to force Mom & Dad deeper into the workforce to pay for this liberal need for govmint. Taking-away of course precious time to make sure their kids learn what they want them to learn.

Normally I would say that the pendulum will swing to the other side eventually, but I fear what we have here instead is a death spiral.

[VMI77]

VM,
Thanks for making that clear.. That's a lot more reasonable than the way I was processing it at first. I agree with pretty much everything you said above.. I was just a bit taken aback if you thought that parts of the American government were promoting gun violence as a way to pass an anti-gun agenda.

Personally, I think that thanks to the media attention, if you want to get some attention in the US, we all know how to do it. Frequency of incidents is going to stay at the current level - or maybe increase. I just don't remember it being like this 20 or 30 years ago. And all this attention is bad for the 2nd amendment.

mamabearCali, Yea.. Canada is far from utopia.. And you point out some of the downfalls of socialized medicine. Seems like we either go there or continue a trend of healthcare that almost no one can afford in the future.

Yes, and while I'd prefer the media to clean up its own house, it's obvious they're are not going to do so, and it may be time for a law that prevents the name of individuals behind these killings from being published.

[VMI77]

We already have re-education camps on a massive scale. It's the public school system. Your children come out of it rejecting your moral values and especially your political values. They have been taught to embrace the far left view and feel contempt and even hate for anyone who does not see it as the only way to go. My son and step-son are leftists. We try to stay off political discussions because the stuff that comes out of their mouths makes me physically ill. My stepson even said once that we needed a great plague to wipe out most of mankind so the planet could recover from all the damage we have done to it. And we needed to do away with "big oil" and if it meant widespread hunger and joblessness to force people to walk and bike instead of drive cars, then so be it. There is a profound belief that it does not matter how many would suffer as long as the ends were achieved. Public school and college is where they got these beliefs. They were re-educated faster than their parents and grandparents could educate them.

The sexualization of youth, especially females, is also going to have some devastating effects on the social contract. I can just about literally seeing the matrimonial bond disappearing before my eyes.

[cb1000rider]

You are welcome to go look at the FBI violent crime stats, they are there for anyone to see. There were more killings and other violent crimes in years past, peaking in the early 90's. Even as the numbers of violent crimes, to include shootings, has fallen, the attention the media has given to those incidents has risen. One can say it's because "if it bleeds, it leads", and is only motivated by lust for ratings. But if that is so, why so little coverage of the worst of the violence and shootings in big cities done by gangs?

You're spot on. However those statistics don't break down crimes with firearms. I've reviewed them before when faced with the argument that countries without firearms have much lower rates of violence.
It's problematic to argue the US vs non-US because the statistics don't agree on what constitutes "violent crime". Violent crime could be down, but crimes involving firearms up...

So I looked that up.. Per the US department of justice, firearm violence is largely flat since 1999, coming down from a much higher level in 1993.

So there doesn't appear to be a crisis - any better or any worse over the last decade or so... It's just the media.

[The Annoyed Man]

You are welcome to go look at the FBI violent crime stats, they are there for anyone to see. There were more killings and other violent crimes in years past, peaking in the early 90's. Even as the numbers of violent crimes, to include shootings, has fallen, the attention the media has given to those incidents has risen. One can say it's because "if it bleeds, it leads", and is only motivated by lust for ratings. But if that is so, why so little coverage of the worst of the violence and shootings in big cities done by gangs?

You're spot on. However those statistics don't break down crimes with firearms. I've reviewed them before when faced with the argument that countries without firearms have much lower rates of violence.
It's problematic to argue the US vs non-US because the statistics don't agree on what constitutes "violent crime". Violent crime could be down, but crimes involving firearms up...

So I looked that up.. Per the US department of justice, firearm violence is largely flat since 1999, coming down from a much higher level in 1993.

So there doesn't appear to be a crisis - any better or any worse over the last decade or so... It's just the media.

cb, don't know if you have seen this, but I have found it very useful: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... n_2012.xls