New gun legislation?

[RobTheDrummer]

so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm)
n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Looks like socialism to me.

One of the stipulations of the auto industry is that government is now able to tell them how to run their company. You say the auto industry came running, well the government offered the bailouts. This is not the governments place to do such a thing with the taxpayer's monies.

Hey jack, every society has problems. You can't fix them all. However in a time like this, money seems to be the issue. Explain to me how spending trillions more will fix it. Bush basically spent money like a liberal democrat and ruined the republican party. What's BO's answer? Spend fucking more? Way to kick a dog when he's down! It's ridiculous!

Another thing I don't like is the speed at which he's pushing his agenda. It's like he has something to hide, so he wants to get it through before anyone notices. There was a politician saying that the purpose of the senate is to slow things down and look at what the bills are about, while Obama wants to pass things before they even read them....that's fucked up.

[joltinjeff]

Isnt it amazing that a pol thread has gotten over 6 pages and has veered off the course. We have argued socialism, liberalism, and every other ism there is in politics.
Gun control is one thing ... I believe there should be some kind of laws concerning automatic weapons .... but on the other side of the toast is that I have a right as an American to own a gun.
I guess it comes down to your beliefs and what you want. All I know is that we can argue - discuss this thread until we are all aged rockers in nursing homes drooling over the nurses. No one is ever goin to be satisfied

[RobTheDrummer]

Isnt it amazing that a pol thread has gotten over 6 pages and has veered off the course. We have argued socialism, liberalism, and every other ism there is in politics.
Gun control is one thing ... I believe there should be some kind of laws concerning automatic weapons .... but on the other side of the toast is that I have a right as an American to own a gun.
I guess it comes down to your beliefs and what you want. All I know is that we can argue - discuss this thread until we are all aged rockers in nursing homes drooling over the nurses. No one is ever goin to be satisfied

There already are laws in place for automatic weapons. I think there should be less bullshit for a LEGAL gun owner. And stiffer penalties for ILLEGAL gun owners. Don't clump them all in a big generality and say outlaw guns altogether. It's another one of those situations where some bad eggs ruin the whole bunch. Don't punish me because some cocksucker stole a gun and shot someone. Punish the mother fucker who stole the fucking gun and shot the person. Stop the drug dealers and gang-bangers who kill at will. No, lets take guns from those that have a legal permit, use guns safely, and would never aim a gun at another human. In the mean time, the gang-bangers can still have theirs, because the guns they use are bought illegally, not registered, or stolen.

[joltinjeff]

Isnt it amazing that a pol thread has gotten over 6 pages and has veered off the course. We have argued socialism, liberalism, and every other ism there is in politics.
Gun control is one thing ... I believe there should be some kind of laws concerning automatic weapons .... but on the other side of the toast is that I have a right as an American to own a gun.
I guess it comes down to your beliefs and what you want. All I know is that we can argue - discuss this thread until we are all aged rockers in nursing homes drooling over the nurses. No one is ever goin to be satisfied

There already are laws in place for automatic weapons. I think there should be less bullshit for a LEGAL gun owner. And stiffer penalties for ILLEGAL gun owners. Don't clump them all in a big generality and say outlaw guns altogether. It's another one of those situations where some bad eggs ruin the whole bunch. Don't punish me because some cocksucker stole a gun and shot someone. Punish the mother fucker who stole the fucking gun and shot the person. Stop the drug dealers and gang-bangers who kill at will. No, lets take guns from those that have a legal permit, use guns safely, and would never aim a gun at another human. In the mean time, the gang-bangers can still have theirs, because the guns they use are bought illegally, not registered, or stolen.

Believe it or not, I am on your side on this. I just didnt say it right chalk it up to a senior moment. But you are correct - do not punish those of us who own guns. What I am afraid of and which every gun owner should be is that those bad apples have already spoiled it for us have made the ppl who make the laws in this country a little excuse the pun "gun shy" about what they should do. If they dont take a hard stand against it, they get shit from those who want stringent laws. If they make it too hard, then those of us who are gun owners are pissin and moanin about our 2nd Ammendment Rights. Tell me ... where does it all end??????/

[JackANSI]

Hey jack, every society has problems. You can't fix them all. However in a time like this, money seems to be the issue. Explain to me how spending trillions more will fix it. Bush basically spent money like a liberal democrat and ruined the republican party. What's BO's answer? Spend fucking more? Way to kick a dog when he's down! It's ridiculous!

Another thing I don't like is the speed at which he's pushing his agenda. It's like he has something to hide, so he wants to get it through before anyone notices. There was a politician saying that the purpose of the senate is to slow things down and look at what the bills are about, while Obama wants to pass things before they even read them....that's fucked up.

Things move too slow, therefore the the government is too big and doesn't work. Things move to fast, therefore the government has a hidden agenda. What is the proper pace then? Is it just long enough to make you think they spent enough time on it? Why can't they consider things quickly?

Just because Bush spent money on the wrong things, doesn't mean all spending is bad.

[RobTheDrummer]

Hey jack, every society has problems. You can't fix them all. However in a time like this, money seems to be the issue. Explain to me how spending trillions more will fix it. Bush basically spent money like a liberal democrat and ruined the republican party. What's BO's answer? Spend fucking more? Way to kick a dog when he's down! It's ridiculous!

Another thing I don't like is the speed at which he's pushing his agenda. It's like he has something to hide, so he wants to get it through before anyone notices. There was a politician saying that the purpose of the senate is to slow things down and look at what the bills are about, while Obama wants to pass things before they even read them....that's fucked up.

Things move too slow, therefore the the government is too big and doesn't work. Things move to fast, therefore the government has a hidden agenda. What is the proper pace then? Is it just long enough to make you think they spent enough time on it? Why can't they consider things quickly?

Just because Bush spent money on the wrong things, doesn't mean all spending is bad.

They are pushing too fast, they aren't given time to read the bill and discuss it. You don't find anything wrong with that?

[JackANSI]

So how long is long enough?

It doesn't matter how much time they spend on it. They'll do whatever the lobbyists say they should do, public or government welfare be damned...

[RobTheDrummer]

So how long is long enough?

It doesn't matter how much time they spend on it. They'll do whatever the lobbyists say they should do, public or government welfare be damned...

And right there is one big problem with the system. We should do away with that bullshit as well.

[JackANSI]

So how long is long enough?

It doesn't matter how much time they spend on it. They'll do whatever the lobbyists say they should do, public or government welfare be damned...

And right there is one big problem with the system. We should do away with that bullshit as well.

Preaching to the choir on that one. I think its the biggest problem with government today. The people 'in-charge' CAN be bought.

[RobTheDrummer]

So how long is long enough?

It doesn't matter how much time they spend on it. They'll do whatever the lobbyists say they should do, public or government welfare be damned...

And right there is one big problem with the system. We should do away with that bullshit as well.

Preaching to the choir on that one. I think its the biggest problem with government today. The people 'in-charge' CAN be bought.

It's like legal corruption.

[JackANSI]

Its the campaign promise that is made every year, but is completely forgotten because of gun control, or health care, or war distract the weak minded in the populace.

[RobTheDrummer]

Its the campaign promise that is made every year, but is completely forgotten because of gun control, or health care, or war distract the weak minded in the populace.

And the politicians are happy for that.

[Banned]

Demonstrate how your way fixes problems we have in modern society.

I do not want to fix modern society. Why would I want to attempt that? That's what liberals want government to try to do, and always fail. I want our government to be ruled by the limits clearly stated in the Constitution. That is a much reduced federal government, with way less of our tax dollars. Give the American people more of their hard earned money, and these problems that you fret about will go away.

[JackANSI]

...B. Hussien...

Thats as good as telling everyone who you are

[nakedtwister]

I like guns

[RobTheDrummer]

I like guns

I like you!

[songsmith]

It's bullshit that I have to pay for roads that I don't drive on.

That's a very distinct view. I'm quite startled by your "survival of the fittest" attitude. Why are you a separatist?--->JMS

[Hawk]

I like guns

I like you!

I don't like guns. But I don't like the government telling me I can't own them.

BTW Rob, I know you enjoy getting the liberal ire up, and you will say whatever it takes to do so. Which means you won't / don't listen to reason.

If you (along with ucjoe) would actually appreciate the social programs (water, roads, EPA, FDA, Police, Military, etc.) that do work, you would understand that it is not a socialist country, but a capitalistic country that recognises we need a central pool of people (government) to have an organizational program to run these social programs for the good of all of the people.

Section 8 Article 1 of the US Constitution. "Implied powers" allows the federal government to create what they deem necessary for the USA. Such as the Air Force. There is NOTHING in the constitution about having an air force because they would have never guessed there would be a need for one.

The geniuses they were, they put in section 8 article 1 so necessary programs could be added by the Federal Government as needed. So don't give me any of this bull shit that "It's not in the constitution". Yes it is.

They also had no clue that things like MRI, CAT scans, X Rays, heart transplants would be commonplace. "Implied powers" does allow the government to get involved when we have MILLIONS of people without proper health care. When insurance companies won't take people with pre-existing conditions. When insurance companies show record profits while routinely finding loop holes to drop people who have already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars over their life time. "Implied Powers" gives the Federal government the means to get involved under the constitution.

[Banned]

Hawk wrote:

"The geniuses they were, they put in section 8 article 1 so necessary programs could be added by the Federal Government as needed. So don't give me any of this bull shit that "It's not in the constitution". Yes it is.
"

Bill, Congress tells us how much water should be in our toilets when we flush liberal ideas down the shitter. Can you tell me where in the Constitution that it is written that Congress has that stated power over our shitters? If you say that it is a necessary law, then you could say ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING is "needed" can be said to be Constitutional.

[Hawk]

Dear Joe,

Section 8 Article 1. The constitution was not written with everyone in total agreement. My hero Hamilton and your hero Jefferson disagree on what the power of the Federal Government should be. Hamilton wanted a strong central government. Hamilton pushed for section 8 article 1, "Implied Powers". Jefferson was against it.

HOWEVER When Jefferson was president of the United States of America he used section 8, article 1 to get what he (personally) wanted!

Sooo Joe, your hero is either a hypocrite OR he came to realize that "Implied Power" section 8 article 1 of the constitution is a good thing !

Now Joe, answer me this please. Is Jefferson a hypocrite or a progressive who acknowledged the need for section 8 article 1 ?

I'd like to believe the latter.

[Banned]

Jefferson definitely used extra-Constitutional powers when he was president. He was not the first. George Washington crushed the Constitution when he led a campaign against whiskey brewers right here in Western Pa. in the Whiskey Rebellion.

Bill, you got me, there has never been a perfect President.

We would be much better off with a limited Constitutional government than the current one with Hussein now spending 28% of the nation's GDP. (and he is just half way through his first year.....God help us)

[lonewolf]

Dear Joe,

Section 8 Article 1. The constitution was not written with everyone in total agreement. My hero Hamilton and your hero Jefferson disagree on what the power of the Federal Government should be. Hamilton wanted a strong central government. Hamilton pushed for section 8 article 1, "Implied Powers". Jefferson was against it.

HOWEVER When Jefferson was president of the United States of America he used section 8, article 1 to get what he (personally) wanted!

Sooo Joe, your hero is either a hypocrite OR he came to realize that "Implied Power" section 8 article 1 of the constitution is a good thing !

Now Joe, answer me this please. Is Jefferson a hypocrite or a progressive who acknowledged the need for section 8 article 1 ?

I'd like to believe the latter.

"Implied Powers" is limited to unforeseen changes in the specific subjects listed under section 8. It was not meant to be a carte blanche for any flippin thing a big spending, power hungry politician can think up.

Unfortunately, if a law simply refers to something listed in section 8 and the Supreme Court buys the bullshit, it may not be found unconstitutional.

For instance, if you read this particular gun bill, the preamble goes to great lengths to describe how it relates to interstate trade.

Ya. Interstate trade. They want a list of privately owned used guns to regulate interstate trade. Uh, huh. Right.

[Flaw]

You guys are still talking about this?!? There are more important things going on...like the taco bell dog died.