I largely think Koffler is right.
A president, especially one of limited popularity like Obama, cannot do too many big things. And what Obama really wants to do is grant amnesty to America’s illegal immigrants and win the budget battles with Congress – the latter to ensure federal spending doesn’t dip and taxes continue to go up.
The gun issue is merely an inconvenience that the White House quickly moved out of the way with a commission and today’s gun control announcement. Going forward, I doubt you will hear much about the issue, and I don’t think there will be much done on Capitol Hill.
That’s why, for example, Obama’s press conference this week was scheduled for Monday instead of Thursday, the day after the gun announcement, when he could have given the proposals maximum publicity. He wanted to use the press conference to talk about the budget, not guns.
While I think there will be some new gun laws, some of which are clearly unconstitutional (not even just the 2nd… try the 4th too…), passed in states like New York and Obama will do some more damage to our rights with Executive Orders, I still don’t anticipate large movement on this issue. It is still our duty to fight more infringments on our rights tooth and nail, but let’s not lose sight of Obama’s desire to spend this country into oblivion.
Republicans will give him amnesty if he pushes for it, but the budget is headed for brinksmanship.
And, guns? Biden the Bungler wouldn’t have been tapped if he actually cared about it.
Perhaps we can claim exemption by membership in the Sinaloa drug cartel or some Syrian AQ faction.
“It is still our duty to fight more infringments on our rights tooth and nail, but let’s not lose sight of Obama’s desire to spend this country into oblivion.”
Do you really think that’s your duty? Not trying to be a dick or anything, I just have a hard time wrapping my head around people that think like that, or really care about this issue. I get that it’s our constitutional right to own guns, tanks, flame-throwers and, if we can afford them or know how to make them, nuclear weapons (despite what the court says in some of those cases), but do you really believe that you KNOW that we’re better off having these things in the hands of every Republican Honey-boo-boo watching idiot? Do you really think there’s value in us being able to try to overthrow the US government and military with force? Do you really think we’d stand a chance, even with assault rifles?
Nice to know what the 2nd amendment is really all about.
guns, tanks, flame-throwers and, if we can afford them or know how to make them, nuclear weapons (despite what the court says in some of those cases), but do you really believe that you KNOW that we’re better off having these things in the hands of every Republican Honey-boo-boo watching idiot? Do you really think there’s value in us being able to try to overthrow the US government and military with force? Do you really think we’d stand a chance, even with assault rifles?
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 16, 2013 at 1129 hrs
4.Nice to know what the 2nd amendment is really all about.
Posted by Dave on January 16, 2013 at 1913 hrs
I am just amazed at how dumb liberals can be.
Nice to know what the 2nd amendment is really all about.
Dave comes in a mere 5 hours after this was posted on DU. What a fucking tool.
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:18 PM
Ichingcarpenter (27,215 posts)
The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery:Southern Slave patrols
First, I’m not a liberal and I can’t fathom why you would assume that I am. Second, your offhanded comment that doesn’t address anything I said makes you sound like a complete idiot. Please elaborate and I will respond to whichever part you didn’t understand or that you take exception to.
Why do liberals tend to deny their liberal tendencies? Do they feel this gives them credibility? And to make comments about flame throwers and nukes…
If it looks like a turd, and smells like a turd, it’s Jesusjustalrightwithme…
Nice response smart guy. I’m a libertarian. I kind of can’t stand big government Democrats/Republicans. I support the 2nd Amendment. There’s nothing in the 2nd Amendment that carves out an exception allowing congress to prevent individuals from keeping and bearing flame throwers and nukes. If you can find an exception that allows congress to do that, please point it out. You can’t. So we have the right to have them. They would actually be quite useful in carying out the task for which the 2nd amendment exists—overthrowing government. If you don’t like it, amend the constitution.
That said, the idea of overthrowing government, now, in the 21st century, is absurd, and people that think guns are cool are usually complete douchebags.
Second amendment allows people to make nukes? You’d be hard pressed to find a supreme court justice to agree. I know Scalia doesn’t agree….
True. But I don’t think the courts are always right. Are you saying that you think congress should be allowed to regulate what types of arms people are allowed to have?
I can’t say jijawm. Do you think people who can’t be bothered to produce an ID should be allowed to vote? How about folks being able to print unverified and in hindsight false “news”. Maybe folks assembling with the express intent to disrupt and threaten public officials.
Such tactics of nukes and flamethrowers is the same as the assault weapon, in actuality, being a semi automatic, yet scary looking, weapon. I can put 2 different looking weapons together and both are the same caliber, perform the same, act and react the same but one is scary with a pistol grip and the other isn’t. For maximum carnage I would take the sleeker non pistol grip because in close quarters, the least amount of sticking out things gives the maximum sweeping ability but it is also not scary looking. Bayonet lugs are also scary but I am not sure there are too many bayonet involved mass killings…but it is scary enough to be part of the bill.
In all using extremes is a common arguement on both sides to scare the uninitiated into following their appointed path and as a lself respecting ibertarian, I would hope you were above that technique.
Incidently, there was an individual nicknamed The White Death (Simo Hayha) who used a bolt action, iron sighted Mosin-Nagant rifle to take out over 500 russian troops in less than 100 days during WW2. Not even a semi auto and yet he had the red army quaking in their boots. You don’t need nuclear weapons to defend oneself and fellows. Simply enough arms and know how to be dangerous.
The only reason I’m using extremes in this case is because the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is pretty damn extreme. You don’t have the right to bear arms so you can hunt, or defend your family from intruders. You have the right to bear arms so you can fight against the US Military. Those guys are super tough, so for the 2nd Amendment to have any teeth, it HAS to apply to the big guns too.
Again, I think it’s a retarded idea even with flame throwers and automatic weapons, which is why I don’t really get why some people are so into guns. Do they really think they’re going to overthrow the government with an AR-15? If not, why would anyone give one shit about an AR-15?
And just so I’m clear, I support your right to bear arms. I understand the 2nd Amendment and I’m not a hypocrite. BUT, I have to assume that you’re either bonkers or a complete pussy if you’re really into guns. At least based on the people I’ve met that are really into guns. (BOCTAOE).
“Do you think people who can’t be bothered to produce an ID should be allowed to vote?”
I think people should be allowed to vote, and they have the constitutional right to.
“How about folks being able to print unverified and in hindsight false “news”.
I’d need an example. Generally, people should be able to print whatever they want. If it’s not true than they should be harshly criticized, boycotted, fired, etc.
“Maybe folks assembling with the express intent to disrupt and threaten public officials.”
I’d say generally, if people act on their threats they should be dealt with accordingly.
In the event of an actual war in this country a portion of the military would side against the government. In addition, the more sophisticated weapons rely on people and parts from all over the country and world and would become less serviceable in a hurry. In most of the country you would pretty quickly have a run what you brung kind of war where simpler man portable weapons are the norm.
You wouldn’t have to overthrow the government. The government would have to come and get you. That’s a very different proposition.
Whelp, that answers that. I guess people DO still believe guns serve that purpose. I’m not being pithy, I honestly didn’t think you guys actually did own guns for that purpose anymore.
I maintain the right, jesusisjustalrightwithme.
As do I. The compound is open to anyone with the ammo, food, and the wherewithall to make survival a go. Not a nut…just prepared. We don’t have car insurance because we expect to get into a wreck, we have it in case we do.