How about this stinker of a bill? This, if made into a law, would let someone tell a gov't agency they think you're crazy and or dangerous. They could then come and take all of your guns and you would have to have a hearing to convince them to give your guns back. And you could not buy any guns until that hearing. I know this will likely never pass, but they keep throwing this crap at the wall hoping one will stick.
http://www.guns.com/2015/01/26/capps-introduces-gun-violence-restraining-order-bill-to-congress/
Straight out of the communist playbooks..."useful idiots"
QuoteSaul Alinsky died about 43 years ago, but his writings influenced those in political control of our nation today.......
Recall that Hillary did her college thesis on his writings and Obama writes about him in his books.
Died: June 12, 1972, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Ca
Education: University of Chicago
Spouse: Irene Alinsky
Books: Rules for Radicals, Reveille for Radicals
Anyone out there think that this stuff isn't happening today in the U.S. ?
All eight rules are currently in play
How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky:
There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.
1) Healthcare? Control healthcare and you control the people
2) Poverty ? Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt ? Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control? Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare ? Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)
6) Education ? Take control of what people read and listen to ? take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion ? Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools
8) Class Warfare ? Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
Does any of this sound like what is happening to the United States ?
Alinsky merely simplified Vladimir Lenin's original scheme for world conquest by communism, under Russian rule. Stalin described his converts as "Useful Idiots." The Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control. It is presently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S.
If people can read this and still say everything is just fine? they are ?useful idiots.
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
I like the Rules For Radicals quote, Shadow. It's crazy that politicians have got as far as they have with those principles in our country.
Hillary was a solid Republican and attended the 1968 RNC.
When she saw all the racists she switched parties.
Quote from: The_Shadow on January 27 2015 10:21:07 AM MST
Straight out of the communist playbooks..."useful idiots"
QuoteSaul Alinsky died about 43 years ago, but his writings influenced those in political control of our nation today.......
Recall that Hillary did her college thesis on his writings and Obama writes about him in his books.
Died: June 12, 1972, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Ca
Education: University of Chicago
Spouse: Irene Alinsky
Books: Rules for Radicals, Reveille for Radicals
Anyone out there think that this stuff isn't happening today in the U.S. ?
All eight rules are currently in play
How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky:
There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.
1) Healthcare? Control healthcare and you control the people
2) Poverty ? Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt ? Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control? Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare ? Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)
6) Education ? Take control of what people read and listen to ? take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion ? Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools
8) Class Warfare ? Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
Does any of this sound like what is happening to the United States ?
Alinsky merely simplified Vladimir Lenin's original scheme for world conquest by communism, under Russian rule. Stalin described his converts as "Useful Idiots." The Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control. It is presently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S.
If people can read this and still say everything is just fine? they are ?useful idiots.
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
The one I have the most trouble with is #6. No it is NOT OK that little Johnny has two fathers.
I expect nothing less out of the land of "FRUIT AND NUT's". Hopefully it dies.
Wolfie, there's racists on both sides of the isle.
Shadow, There's nothing wrong with homosexuals, but it's been over-politicized and forced on people. The gov't needs to stay out of peoples bedrooms. (and gun safes)
It's stupid that our elected law makers waste time proposing these DOA bills. They just feel they have to keep coming up with new laws and regs to justify their existence.
Quote from: Wolfie on January 27 2015 04:00:30 PM MST
Hillary was a solid Republican and attended the 1968 RNC.
When she saw all the racists she switched parties.
And Democrats founded the KKK.
Yes Hillary was born in a Republican family, but her campaign bio doesn't even put her switch that abruptly and no mention of actual live racists at that
evil Republican party convention. :))
Let's put it this way, she nor her family were never true conservatives, then she found gun control.
Quote from: gandog56 on January 28 2015 05:31:48 AM MST
The one I have the most trouble with is #6. No it is NOT OK that little Johnny has two fathers.
I think you forgot a word.
It is not ok with you that little Johnny has two fathers.
But Johnny's father's sex lives aren't our business.
joshuamalezi, writes
QuoteShadow, There's nothing wrong with homosexuals, but it's been over-politicized and forced on people. The gov't needs to stay out of peoples bedrooms. (and gun safes)
I think you confused pacapcop's post
QuoteI expect nothing less out of the land of "FRUIT AND NUT's". Hopefully it dies.
As being mine post...
I have to agree
QuoteThe gov't needs to stay out of peoples bedrooms. (and gun safes)
with the over reaching Greedy Government Gone Wild for power and control at the expense of our freedoms.
Fruity as in Coo Coo For Coco Puffs, essentric types. Nuts as in plain freakin crazy. Nothing in regards to Homo activity. Thats been around a long time before now.
The KKK was formed by Dixiecrats, todays southern GOP.
Now I am pro gun and still 100% against the NY Safe Act. But NY is now #3 in gun deaths behind Massachusetts, those Gun Laws that Republican Mitt Romney passed and Hawaii which is nearly impossible to get a gun. 5 deaths per 100,000 the worst states, all GOP states at a whopping 19 deaths per 100,000
If CA is looking at the facts they very well may pass more gun laws. After all Reagan passed some pretty strict ones, but that was to keep guns away from blacks so he gets a pass for that.
http://blogs.democratandchronicle.com/voteup/2015/01/29/ny-ranked-third-lowest-in-gun-deaths/
The NY 5 per 100,000 is with out NYCity factored in. I lived in WNY out side of Buffalo in Lancaster NY and in the city of Buffalo the averaged almost 1-2 killing a day NYC is triple that a day - its so common there no one pays attention to it - I lived there from 69 to 85 in Erie County and I had a CCW .
We figured if they stayed in the cjty and killed there own, we didn't care.
Doug
The story said it was statewide.
They include suicide in that rate.
I did not see anything about it. But I looked it up.
The Big Apple boasts one of the lowest suicide rates of the nation from 2010 and is only topped by the District of Columbia (6.8). With a low prevalence of both obesity and smoking, availability of health care, and a high per capita of public health funding, New York has several strengths on its side.
Yes. Low suicide rate, low gun ownership rate hence lower gun deaths.
Can't infer that unconstitutional laws are the answer.
Never said that, said that they work.
I live in NYS and I have every type of gun I want. NY has never stopped me from getting what I want.
There was a time when seatbelts were not in cars, dashes were not padded and DWI was no big deal. Those things were looked at and safety SAVED lives.
I worked a fatal one day. Gulf War vet, great guy slid on ice into a poll, not wearing his seat belt, went through the windshield and sliced his neck wide open.
Every day a kid or a innocent person is killed by someone that did not use his gun properly.
The NRA should be promoting safety and safety policies, not acting like a wing of the GOP.
If the NRA-ILA was not supporting the positions of politicians that are pro 2nd, there would be no need for them to teach safety and safety policies
Firearms would be banned already.
Do you really think we can legislate our way into utopia?
No one is coming for anyones guns.
Bloomberg? Soros? Obama?
QuoteNo one is coming for anyones guns.
As long as it's a single shot, muzzle loading rifle right?
Do you think we can legislate away all tragedies?
Quote from: Wolfie on January 29 2015 06:46:22 PM MST
Never said that, said that they work.
I live in NYS and I have every type of gun I want. NY has never stopped me from getting what I want.
The NRA should be promoting safety and safety policies, not acting like a wing of the GOP.
You said the laws work and I am saying your analytical skills are weak.
Oh I thought you guys had mag limits and stuff. Well that's pretty cool that you can get 15 round mags for Glock 20's.
NRA does promote safety. And they help keep the attacks on our civil rights at bay.
I am not happy with mag limits, it keeps me looking away from the EEA guns.
But lets face reality, if you cannot take out your target with SEVEN rounds of 10mm, you should NOT be carrying a gun.
Well Wolfie, enjoy the seven rounds while you can.
Let me guess Earl, you need a 100 round barrel magazine to take out a kid eating Skittles.
Back to the original subject matter. It will create a retaliation mentality on various levels.
I concur and I disagree with these laws.
Whats going to happen is that these mental laws are going to stop people from getting help as they are going to be fearful that they are going to lose their guns.
This will make matters worse in my opinion.
Quote from: Wolfie on January 29 2015 08:17:22 PM MST
Let me guess Earl, you need a 100 round barrel magazine to take out a kid eating Skittles.
Let me guess Wuf, you have a problem with cognitive reasoning, don't you?
I don't need chit, nothing, nadda.....
But it's not called the Bill of Needs, is it?
I believe it's called The Bill of RIGHTS!
Are you a free man?
Answer my question that I've presented to you twice now,
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE CAN LEGISLATE OUR WAY TO UTOPIA?
DO YOU BELIEVE WE CAN LEGISLATE AWAY TRAGEDY?
Our own country wants to disarm us, yet it has built some of the most destructive weapons ever devised...still there is evil that lurks around the world.
I am not sure what a couple of you are arguing about since clear assertions haven't been made. I am gonna make a couple.
Correlation is not causation. Looking at the suicide rates by state I could make a pretty strong correlation between states with mountains and suicide rates. Doesn't mean mountains cause suicide.
Here is a thought. Suicide is the result of very complex societal pressures combined with mental disorders in individuals. While access to lethal means is often an evaluated environmental factor, there is rarely the ability to attribute actual causation to these factors.
Wolfie, while I absolutely agree that modern safety features, including seat belts, save lives, I still don't understand how society gets a say in whether or not I wear a seatbelt.
And that gets to a core philosophical debate. Governments govern by force or threat of force. There needs to be a coherent philosophical statement that defines the governments source of authority to legitimately use that force, at least in a free society.
The common man responds to this challenge by citing democratic process. But that is, put plainly, idiocy. Pure democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what is for supper. We can't vote to roast the Earl o Sammich for dinner, no matter how hungry his username makes me.
We exercise our republican democracy to enact laws with regard to specific areas that our government has been given authority from the people. We the people.....
Since we the people are giving the authority to the government, it stands that we have given an authority that we ourselves inherently possess. The Declaration says that my each of us has a right to life, liberty and property. And, by extension, we have the right to protect our life liberty and property. If I can't act to defend my life, liberty or property, I don't really possess them. Also, if I can't dispose of my life, liberty or property as I see fit, with the limit that such disposition cannot directly and maliciously compromise another's rights to same, I don't really possess them.
Here then is the source of our governments power. I can delegate to the government the authority to enact and enforce laws that protect my life, liberty and property.
And here then is the rub. Seatbelt laws fall outside that delegation. If you choose not to wear your seatbelt, you do not endanger my life, liberty or property. Therefore I have no authority to force you to wear the seatbelt. Speed limits...Yep. Vehicle safety standards such as functioning brakes, steering, lights, etc...Yep. Licensure requirements to ensure you have a minimum understanding of safe operation....Debatable, but I will give you a yep there too. But padded dashboards? Gonna call out a nope there. Padded dashboards don't protect some else life, liberty or property.
Guns, similarly, fall outside that delegation. Not only that, but guns are further called out as a fundamental right in the bill of rights. In a right that is incorporated, meaning it applies to each of us individually, regardless of state boundries. And a right that is subject to strict scrutiny. Which means that in order to legitimately subrogate this right for a broader right, the government must show it has a legitimate government interest (maintaining peace and safety..Ok), that the law is as narrowly crafted as needed to meet the governments needs (these would be use laws, or restrictions on what I can do with a gun, not what guns I can have or what features the guns can have.), and that the law can be shown to actually achieve the governmental intent (which is where all the regulatory nonsense on what stuff we can have falls apart.)
Operating a car is a privilege not a right. The government can do whatever it wants. When they raised the drinking age, Reagan used his power to get the states to comply.
Quote from: Wolfie on January 30 2015 10:37:49 AM MST
Operating a car is a privilege not a right.
Please provide a citation of case law, as well as full history, and construction of a rational argument justifying this statement. Please note that I am not saying you won't find any, but I am not going to do your work for you. Further, you won't find any case law on this older than the 1930's when Roosevelt stacked the court. Quote from: Wolfie on January 30 2015 10:37:49 AM MST
The government can do whatever it wants.
And, I am done. You are either a troll interested in picking fights just to entertain yourself, or you have no real concept of what the great american experiment is or what it means to participate in said experiment.
Wolfie - by the things you type, you folded. You are a subject.
sqlbullet;
It's that lack of cognitive reasoning thing.
Sammich
P.S. I'm pretty sure I would be very high in cholesterol and not good for you. ...not to mention I'm well past my prime and would probably taste quite gamey.
Folded what Pablo?
I have a bet on the table?
I know the law and American history very well.
As for cognitive reasoning, yes I do not watch FOX 24-7 so I must lack that.
And YES when it comes to driving the government can do what it wants.
Quote from: Wolfie on January 30 2015 11:15:53 AM MST
Folded what Pablo?
I have a bet on the table?
I know the law and American history very well.
As for cognitive reasoning, yes I do not watch FOX 24-7 so I must lack that.
And YES when it comes to driving the government can do what it wants.
You don't even know what cognitive reasoning is do you?
I'm sure you are Googleing it up right now to figure it out.
For instance, explain why you would think I need anything from the comments or postings I made? Your reply/remark about the skittles and 100 round magazine just shows your lack of cognitive reasoning and a weak attempt to divert a "reasoned" argument.
As I said earlier needs have nothing to do with rights.
Do you understand that?
Also, do you think it is possible to legislate mankind's way into utopia?
Do you think mankind can legislate away tragedy?
You do not know American History very well or you would know the true intent and purpose of The Second Amendment. Do you know what that is/was? If you did you would understand that it's purpose, as declared by the founding fathers of this Republic, was to give us a means to defend against a tyrannical and oppressive government. It is exactly counter to your position in these arguments.
But you don't even see that, do you?
As mentioned, you are a troll, neither providing intelligent discourse or relevant discussion and, not only are ignorant, but lacking intelligence, stating you know certain things like history but present or support position that directly contradicts what you claim to know.
And this is not the first time. I remember you taking the position that a valid ID should not be required to vote but that it should be to have a concealed weapons permit, or drivers license?
Of course you don't. I doubt you can remember what happened ten minutes ago.
Earl, how do you get a Concealed permit without ID?
Show me the section of the US Constitution that calls for photo ID to vote.
You are beginning to talk in circles.
No Wolfie. That was you that was talking in circles. Go back and read the part about you probably don't remember what happened ten minutes ago.
Your arguing that there shouldn't be a need for voter ID, that it would disenfranchise voters and cost them to be able to perform basic human right, but you hold that a permit issued by the government to exercise another basic human right, exercising your 2nd Amendment Rights, was/is justified.
Show me in the Constitution where it says I need an ID to bare arms!
Can you say hypocrite?
I will stand by the Founding Fathers and agree with them that no ID is needed to vote.
Is that clear enough?
If you live in a state that does not require a license to carry thats fine with me.
Hope that clears things up.
Clear as mud and more evidence of your lack of comprehension and understanding of logic.
Where do the founding fathers say anything about not requiring ID for voting?
The Second amendment does say, "shall not be infringed" you know.
Can you explain what infringement means?
Quote from: Wolfie on January 30 2015 11:15:53 AM MST
Folded what Pablo?
I have a bet on the table?
I know the law and American history very well.
You've just given up. Given in. OR you like it. You like the Mother and Father Government.
I like government that works for all the people.
Quote from: Wolfie on January 30 2015 12:47:03 PM MST
I like government that works for all the people.
Me too.
Roads. Sane law, border and international aggression enforcement. Agreement of some standards. Common space exploration. Maybe a few other things. That's about it.
Then get out of my way. Leave me and my family ALONE.
Quote from: Wolfie on January 30 2015 12:47:03 PM MST
I like government that works for all the people.
I like government that remains within constitutional bounds.
Greg
You know what concerns me. Examples like colorado.
With the drought that Cali is facing, we might start to see a mass migration from the state. If that happens, all these gun control loving people will take their love of gun control with them wherever they move to.
Next thing you know there is a gun roster for colorado and florida with its arbitrary list or requirements. :o
I'm sorry I've been away a few days. This post has gotten juicy... My problem with this bill is it's unconstitutional on multiple levels. Unless you are the worst of the worst gun grabbing lib prog, you should find this bill abhorrent. How can someone who has sworn to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights propose this bill? Besides the 2nd amendment it is a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments. We are being attacked by the very people we elected to uphold the Constitution. Mob rule.
Because the Libtards know what's better for you than you do. They don't need any other reason.
Leave it to one of WhineSteins minions to come-up with this <r@pp
All she needs is an "R" in her name and it'll say it all :o
Kommie Kalifornia
Land of the Fruits and Nuts!