What I hope for: (Adding "0" as edit in response to first followup post)0. Renewed look at the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 and what it contains. Public awareness that we drew the line on full auto machine guns, and sawed off shotguns. Public awareness that law enforcement and militaries have "Select Fire with either Full Auto or Burst or both" and private owned semi-automatics to not. Emphasis on enforcement of all the laws we already have on the books, including felons. 1. Enough interest and push-back on legislation to drive open dialog to create a more informed public of both the firearms themselves and existing laws and sanctity of the constitution. 2. A full and open debate and discussion on the Constitution, bringing it to the attention as far down as Middle School. Let it be THE topic everywhere. I welcome that with open arms. 3. An open dialog addressing the Oath of Service taken in the military, and what it means.
Hu: Not many of us are worried about the semi-auto .22. Now if the Constitution literally means there can be no restrictions, why restrict Tommy Guns and Howitzers? Personally, I like it that criminals using fully automatic weapons pretty much ended during the Depression, but I know some on here would like to be able to use them for recreational purposes. Is that an unfair encumbrance? Do felons and spouse abusers give up their Constitutional rights -- all of them. Gosh, almost every state restricts them from having guns...
Uninformed -- I guess when Hu was talking about a varmint rifle, that wasn't what I had in mind. I think I've said before I'm an outdoor enthusiast who sometimes uses firearms, not a firearms enthusiast.
Hu: If we left things completely up to the states, when do you think schools would have been integrated in Alabama and black folk allowed to register and vote?
Good point, Crockett. Have to agree. While I'm adding one more post... started to write this on CNN discussion online but decided not to. Piers Morgan really wears on me, and is so far from the quality of Larry King in my opinion. I tuned in to his show today and it was no different than the last time I tuned in. I also wonder why he postures as the spokesman for how everyone in America should live? I am surprised CNN keeps him on, other than the fact they actually want this kind of controversial grating personality. It sells. I was going to post this...
I sometimes enjoy Piers as an interviewer, but not when he's on a rant. I think he did make some interesting points about the difference in gun violence in his home country and the United States and in small doses is something that has its place in the gun debate. I also think it was enetertaining when he gave some pro-gun idiots a chance to show their idiocy. (Note to 621 and 123, I am not equating "pro gun" to "idiot," but I think, for example, Alex Jones, is energetically idiotic no matter what he's talking about.)
And btw, you quote Jesus here: Luke 12:47-48 "That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating. From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded." He's simply making a parallel using the reality of life at that time. He's not telling people to go beat their slaves, he's saying that a slave in that day can expect that sort of treatment. But if you would quote the entire passage you might give people an idea of what he's talking about rather than trying to make it seem that Jesus is discussing/advocating slavery:
How fitting that a thread on the Progressive Agenda (To Slavery) currently centers on slavery, because that is exactly the end point where this agenda progresses. The original enumerated agenda list ought to have added the following item: 0) Increase deficits and the National Debt. With a deficit a national government can disguise the enslaving process and wreck any notion of economy in the short term with the added benefit that in the long term, consistently repeated deficits so bankrupt a nation its currency becomes utterly worthless, thus paving the way for the kind of command rationing known as slavery. Progress (To Slavery) from the national centralized government will undoubtedly be worse than the slavery practiced in antebellum America. At least slavery back in those days was decentralized and bound by market forces. Without decentralization and markets, the government will no doubt starve or slaughter millions of us in the fullness of time.
Recorded and watched opening 15 minutes of this Fox special Fri night and was intrigued by it. The point, obvious to some or many, is that a growing government is money in the pocket for those centered around the Capital area whether in office or working for those in office. The Federal Government is the biggest business on the planet. The data in this report is staggering -- that area is now the wealthiest in America, ahead of Silicon Valley in per capita income. And the annual spending has increased from 2Trillion ten years ago to 4Trillion today, and growing all the time. Matters not to all on Capital Hill... every office, bureau, agency, you name it...they all get a cut. Average salary overall is $120,000... and in the DC area overall the top 5 percent avg about $430,00 a year. And Democrats... ie., Obama's party... are as much in it as Republicans. It's a 2-party system that is 'all in' for all the money they can make off the population. Annual federal government spending is 1/4 of the entire GDP of the country. And those running the show all get a cut no matter how big it gets. What do they care if it gets to $16 trillion, $20 trillion, 30 or 50 Trillion. Their cut just gets bigger. This is for the entire industry that comprises all of the government, every building, staff, bureau, department, you name it. We the taxpayers are funding their jobs and lives. So it does't matter what happens to the economy as long as it stays afloat -- they get their salaries, and they are raised 6 percent or more per year. Government is a cash cow. The money just keeps coming. So yeah, heading more so into a slave society. The taxpayer is the slave. The master is the central government.
Hu, the documentary sounds interesting, though the choice of narrator is off-putting. Why go to the trouble to do a hard-hitting, fact-filled documentary and they let it be narrated by a partisan hack whose every utterance on his own show follows the theme "liberuls are dum."
I guess my unwritten point in the first post is the complete disregard the economy plays in our way of life, our freedoms and our protection from foreign attack. The Progressive agenda locks more poor into a lifetime of government dependency. So their agenda, throws in more entitlements, easier access to more drugs, more people to join the ranks through illegal immigration and removal of guns to ultimately defend the constitution. Modern day slavery is upon us already.
I'm no gun expert, but I understand the lethality of the different rounds and were I given a choice between being shot three times by a .223 AR-15, vs. a deer rifle or a 12 guage shotgun, certainly would go with the .223 unless of course I wished to expire. The scary thing about the AR15 is not the lethality of the rounds, but the number of them. By Hannity standards this was sterling journalism. But by gnoring the number of rounds in the magazine -- he kind of danced around the elephant in the room. To be "fair and balanced" I think a serious reporter might have adressed the number of rounds. Understandng the stopping capabilities would probably be very useful for a firearms novice and to the extent he did that well, I congratulate Hannity. Perhaps I was too harsh after spending a few minutes with him to assume he is all b.s. all the time. It would have been "fair and balanced" simply to report that he was 100 percent b.s. in the small amount of I've allowed him to bombard my mind with b.s.
From your previous comments, it sounded like you needed a primer on weapons since you said the government wasn't interested in taking away .22 and other small caliber rifles. Clearly the assault looking semi-automatics that are targeted by liberal lawmakers are generally of small caliber and even the larger caliber weapons are much less useful in soft target attacks than shotguns and handguns. Both handguns and shotguns are most often semi-automatics, are more portable than assault type weapons and do a lot more damage in short-range attacks. As for the idea of lawmakers just wanting to outlaw large magazines, I guess the point is to inconvenience killers into having to buy and conceal multiple magazines.
I'm not a spokesman for the gun controllers. When I said 'not many of us are worried about semi-auto .22, the us I was thinking about inculuded people with a little knowledge of firearms. I've shot a few boxes of .22 ammo, which has plenty of stopping power for a squirrel, but requires pretty much a shot between the eyes to quickly put down something as big as an armadillo. Also, there is a much bigger difference in the potency of the rounds from a .223 and a .22 than one might expect from .a simple ratio of the two numbers.
The one on the left is a varmint rifle by Remington, the R15, and is on Feinstein's list. Remington lists that rifle a few ways. As a Predator rifle, as an Autoloading Rifle, and as a Modular Repeating Rifle. How's that for choice of words. The mechanics of it are like most AR's dating back to Vietnam, and I think M4 is a common name for the carbine, which means 16" barrel. These 'varmint' models come in 18 or so, up to 20 and 22 inches, and are made for accuracy with better barrel and how it's mounted, but all the mechanics are AR-type and are interchangeable. So much that the phrase 'furniture' is common. Like, a model of an AR that comes with such-and-such furniture. Not very menacing sounding when a gun has 'furniture.' The furniture being special stocks, grips, forends and all that. The rifle on the right is Ruger's version of a .223, and it's called the Mini-14, though I don't know what 14 means in this case. It's on Feinstein's list also. This is a synthetic stock model with stainless barrel but they've been around in wood and standard rifle black. It can take a magazine, but the bolt action on it is not the same as most ARs. A Ruger of this type is a heavier gun than most AR's and does have other models by name. The wooden one is the Ranch, and this one here is called Target, and one with a modified stock is the Tactical, but you see how you can just have it more as a rifle than an 'assault' weapon. My father had a Remington semi-automatic .22 with tube fed bullets. My grandfather in Hardin County always hunted with a semi-automatic shotgun. I never thought anything unusual about a semi-automatic long gun. So the point is that a semi-auto that takes a magazine does not have to look like an assault rifle in movies, or on the news. They can be like a hunting rifle, just automatic and with a magazine. I still think the Progressive Agenda is using this measure to assert power and control, with the intent to feel emboldened to impose more agendas on the society, all because in their minds it is 'the right way to live.' Agree with the opening post and poster on the thread's topic. If a strong far-reaching ban were to get through, the banning of the firearms would be the least significant thing accomplished. Far more important would be the very act of being able to do it -- demonstrating by the very act of being able to impose that much power on the society. Any political party that can tamper with the 2nd Amendment is not that many steps from taking away any of the other Bill of Rights or imposing any law or rule of law on the land. THAT is what they really are after but hardly realize it themselves. Those in love with the party can't even see that side of it. But it's there. And one other point.... everyone uses the images and perceptions of semi-automatic weapon-looking guns to their advantage. Action movies rely on the menacing look to make it work for Arnold and Sly to have one in each hand, barging in on the bad guys. Or guys in jeeps running around Africa or the Mideast. They WANT them to look like 'bad' guns. But then the politicians who want to impose a Progressive Agenda relish in that perception and accentuate it. And assert the term 'assault weapon' when the definition (read the history in Wikipedia) says assault RIFLE years back, and the select fire of auto or burst has to be there to even use the term assault at all. You might say the Progressive Agenda is built on persuasive journalism, biased charged words and terms, and always fear. It's not political law by gun point and chains, as it is sold with soft words, gentle tones and promises of utopian society, love, fairness, gentleness, intelligence (as in 'we are the SMART party') and on and on and on, but it's political power still delivered with a Mailed Fist, albeit a fluffy one.
Here's a succinct point of view on what's wrong with central planning for an economy/society.In reply to:
HuFan, Excellent (albeit brief) discussion of Austrian Economics vs. Keynsianism. The fact that there are still large numbers of people who believe in Keynesianism is shocking and frankly shameful. At this point, it should have about as much of a following as horoscopes and fortune tellers.
