Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Obama cites Australia's gun confiscation........

Without the most base understanding that their gun control cabal is just as fundamentally ignorant as ours is.
“My biggest frustration so far is the fact that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can do just unbelievable damage. We’re the only developed country on earth where this happens. And it happens now once a week. And it’s a one-day story. There’s no place else like this,” the president said. 
“A couple of decades ago Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown, and Australia just said, ‘Well, that’s it. We’re not doing — we’re not seeing that again,’ and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since. I mean, our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no other advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this,” Obama added.
Of course, he doesn't mention the third rail of the gun control cabal......confiscation. But that's exactly what occurred in Australia.


The anti-liberty sycophants from down under suffer from the same fundamental ignorance about the issues that they're so petulantly vociferous about, as does our very own gun control cabal.

Not really sure if I should giggle at the stupid...or weep for humanity......

159 comments:

  1. Well, Americans aren't mature enough to have the Australian system here, so I wouldn't worry about it. Obama was just day dreaming.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It has nothing to do with maturity. The swiss and the israelis, all required to keep fully automatic weapons on their persons at all times, all demonstrate that an armed society is a polite society.

      Delete
    2. You can tell that Jersey didn't watch the video, with it's examples in the similarities of immaturity......or he doesn't want to confront them.

      Delete
  2. We are too mature to have confiscation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jersey is a fount of stupidity.

    Beware leftwing progressive daydreams: They result in dictatorial nightmares.

    Does the federal government really want to confiscate guns?

    Why don't they start with the armed criminal gangs running rampant in our cities?

    Go disarm the criminals, you leftwing scumbags!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stop giving them guns, you irresponsible rightwing children.

      JMJ

      Delete
    2. Somebody's giving out guns? Where? I want to get in line.

      Delete
    3. CI: Upvote!

      Leftwing 'thinking' crumbles quickly upon close examination.

      Delete
    4. "Stop giving them guns, you irresponsible rightwing children."

      A gun giveaway? I'll step in line if they're handing Tavors out.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    6. No Jersey....take your little petulant tantrum elsewhere.

      Delete
    7. LOL! You cons have the intellectual spines of ignorant jellyfish.

      JMJ

      Delete
    8. It's actually called being an adult. If you can't make a point without childish pejoratives...stay in the sandbox.

      Delete
    9. I could say the same about you, Jersey. You have an admirable stance on the "war on drugs", which I have come to side with you on.

      However, you fail to apply the same sort of logic to the silly idea of the "war on guns". You aren't consistent at all.

      Any of the failings of the "drug warriors" you despise, Jersey, are present in YOU when we discuss firearms policy.

      Delete
    10. I take that last slam back. You guys are alright.

      dmarks, what the hell war on guns re you talking about??? We have among the most lax gun laws on the planet! And by far we have the most lax in the Developed World. And if you talk about a war on guns as if it were somehow comparable to the war on drugs then you could only point out the high rate of people arrested for having them illegally but harmlessly. Wouldn't a mass buy-back program alleviate that? A few less kids busted for trying to act manly around their friends? So, if that's what you mean by war on guns, then okay, hows that?

      But if by war on drugs you mean people who want gun control on par with other developed nations, then you have no idea what a war on anything is. Our guns laws are a tragic international joke.

      JMJ

      Delete
    11. "dmarks, what the hell war on guns re you talking about???"

      You. Much of the Left. The PRESIDENT, for crying out loud.

      " We have among the most lax gun laws on the planet! "

      Which is entirely irrelevant to the issue that made you shout: the fact of the "war" by many on the Left on our basic rights to own firearms. You are an enthusisastic particapant in this war. Regardless of what goes on in South Korea or Guinea Bissau.

      "then you could only point out the high rate of people arrested for having them illegally but harmlessly"

      Which is what we would have if you had your way, and we were "mature" (cough cough) and had stormtroopers confiscating our guns.

      "Wouldn't a mass buy-back program alleviate that?"

      Such silliness. Makes as much sense as a buy-back program on drugs.

      "
      But if by war on drugs you mean people who want gun control on par with other developed nations"

      That is a scary war indeed: since the other nations you are thinking of worse, more fascistic policies than ours.

      " Our guns laws are a tragic international joke."

      I don't care if people who mean is ill, and mean their citizens ill, laugh at our relatively more enlightened attitude.

      There are plenty of countries with much more STRINGENT drug laws that think we are too lenient on that. It is the same thing.

      Delete
    12. Jerey said "LOL! You cons have the intellectual spines of ignorant jellyfish."

      Says the guy who deleted his tantrum. Coward.

      Delete
    13. SoL - I deleted his comment. It was a pejorative-ridden rant unbecoming of an adult.

      Delete
    14. "But if by war on drugs you mean people who want gun control on par with other developed nations, then you have no idea what a war on anything is. Our guns laws are a tragic international joke."

      The Australians wished they had easier access to guns when the two ISIS terrorist took a cafe hostage. The French too, when ISIS shot up Charlie Hebedo. The British are starting to realize the unwiseness of gun control thanks to crime in London.

      Delete
    15. CI, okay, though the fact that he would engage in insults still makes him a coward.

      Delete
    16. Oh, Son of Liberty, how will I ever live with you having such a an opinion of me? Woe, oh woe, is me.

      You're really going to use terrorism as your logic? Terrorism? Why not lighting? Then you could shoot the clouds!

      And Lord knows something you've never seen must be proof of my cowardice, right?

      Genius.

      JMJ

      Delete
    17. Avoiding debate altogether, using insults and names, while claiming that our logic is not sound. Yeah, that's cowardice. And Hypocrisy.

      Delete
    18. .... especially when "Son" makes a sound argument to allow the people, law abiding citizens, to exercise their basic rights.

      Delete
  4. Last year just over 9,000 people were killed by guns (excluding suicides)....over 40,000 died from drug over doses..

    The left getting the vapors over gun deaths is over blown and misguided.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And 100,000 died from hospital infections.

      Delete
    2. 80 million guns killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car.

      Delete
    3. And more than three as many die in car crashes than with guns.

      Partially due to the nonsensical Federal policies (leftist) such as CAFE which force the car companies to built dangerous, tiny cars instead of the larger, more substantial (and safer) vehicles American drivers need.

      Eliminating CAFE/etc might well save more lives than are killed yearly using guns in the US. And who opposes this? The left.

      Delete
    4. It really shows how valued people are compared to stuff in the progressive mindset, and people are not exactly at the top.

      Delete
  5. This is yet another "smoking gun" showing that confiscation is a real danger in the US. Not only do we have major party state legislators chanting "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate" and a big state governor supporting it, we now have the President chiming in.

    This real threat of the government stealing guns from innocent people makes purchasing guns in legal ways that avoid background checks (and confiscation registries) the most prudent option.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have plenty of captured quotes, proving that confiscation is their penultimate goal....but they lack the courage of their convictions. They're political coward....preferring instead, to nibble away at the fringes, so as to to arouse suspicions.

      Delete
    2. They need to have a vote. a referendum, on confiscation....

      But they know they would lose big.

      I am reminded of in Michigan, the unions pushed through a ballot initiative, which they billed as a referendum on collective bargaining. It included all kinds of awful things, including banning school districts from firing teachers who teach while drunk.

      As a referendum on labor unions in general, it was strongly rejected by voters. It resulted in the legislature afterwards banning forcing workers to join against their will.

      Big backfire....

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jersey, seriously man. your arguments in this item are coming across as far and away the most immature of any. Which is ironic considering that you criticized your opponents in this debate as not being mature.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Left's "war" is on people getting murdered with guns. It's a war being waged against those in favor of gun murdering... A crowd that includes all the commenters here but me and Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again you display typical black and white, hyper-emotionalized thinking, typical of programmed thought.

      Delete
    2. Sure, law abiding gun owners [who respect our Constitutional rights] favor murder. Yep, that makes perfect sense.......That must be why gun control laws only target those who follow the law.

      Delete
    3. So CI has also noticed that Dervish is mainly attacking non murderers.

      Delete
  9. If Dervish were telling the truth, it would be fine. I stead the Left wars on innocent people who don't murder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. dmarks: ...the Left wars on innocent people who don't murder.

      If dmarks were telling the truth it would be fine. Instead he argues in favor of helping out the criminal and murderers who want easier access to guns.

      CI: Sure, law abiding gun owners [who respect our Constitutional rights] favor murder. Yep, that makes perfect sense.

      Actually, it makes zero sense... and yet you continue vociferously in favor of allowing the murdering to continue. You even want to make it worse!

      Delete
    2. Actually, it makes zero sense...

      Ya think? It's sarcasm genius.

      You even want to make it worse!

      Oh, this will be good. Go ahead now, and post your empirical evidence to support this statement. Not just another stale, emotion-driven drive-by....show where I want to "make murder worse". Think carefully, because if you do what I expect you will.....I'll let that stand....but delete every other post you attempt to make here.

      All I ask is that commentaries act like adults. Adult's don't traffic in pejoratives and baseless accusations....children on the playground do. this isn't that playground.

      Delete
    3. He can't back any of his accusations to either of us.

      No where have I ever supported making it easier for murderers to get guns, for one example.

      Delete
    4. Of course he can't. Oh, he'll try some tired attempt at equating opposition to further infringement upon [only one] Constitutional right....with "supporting murder"....but the only people who will agree with him, are his multiple personalities [I assume he channels them for all of the fanboy blogs of his].

      Delete
    5. Your stated belief that there shouldn't be background checks at all. Dmarks agreed. "Accusation" backed up.

      Delete
    6. You are either simple, confused, or intentionally lying. To start, I asked you to post your empirical evidence to support this statement. Not just another stale, emotion-driven drive-by. I'm still waiting.

      Second, you presume that a position on background checks = a position on "murder".

      Finally, I have a public statement, from me.....that utterly refutes your assertion.

      So, I ask again.....post your empirical evidence to support this statement. Not just another stale, emotion-driven drive-by.

      Delete
    7. CI: Second, you presume that a position on background checks = a position on "murder".

      Damn right I do.

      Delete
    8. And there you have it. Any opposition to the State mandated requirement to ask permission to exercise one's Constitutional right [but only one Constitutional right] = "murder".

      But wait, background checks already occur as mandated by law....yet you claim: Your stated belief that there shouldn't be background checks at all. But cannot seem to located said quote....nor dmarks concurrence.

      Allow me to help you out. On 5 July, 2014 at 8:15pm, I explicitly stated: I support background checks for retail firearm purchases; I support NICs;

      http://libertasandlatte.blogspot.com/2014/07/liberating-common-sense-from-custody-of.html

      So I will ask yet again...post the statement that proves your assertion; or admit that you are simple, confused, or intentionally lying.

      Delete
    9. **If dmarks were telling the truth it would be fine. Instead he argues in favor of helping out the criminal and murderers who want easier access to guns.**

      So you assert that he (and all gun owners) support criminality? Not a surprising admission, but nonetheless.

      Delete
    10. Son: he even accused me of wanting to commit a crime when I gave a scenario under which I said I wished to purchase a firearm legally. Yes, legally.

      Delete
    11. That appears to be exactly what he's saying. There is no logic behind his assertions, but they are consistent with what he typically posts. Its chock full of false, and has been proven, unsupported statements.....but that's how he rolls. He takes a Constitutional right that is already the most onerously burdensome right to exercise, but ironically claims that opposition to yet more burdens upon the law abiding citizen = making it easier for criminals [who don't abide by these laws in the first place] to obtain a firearm. His poor attempt to rationalize his position actually moves the logic train in the wrong direction. I'm not certain that he has the faculties to even be cognizant of this however.

      Delete
    12. Authoritarianism is rarely unpopular in its beginning phases, because it cannot survive without masses of blind, emotional supporters thinking that everyone else is "the enemy" for being different, thinking different, and criticizing.

      Delete
    13. **Son: he even accused me of wanting to commit a crime when I gave a scenario under which I said I wished to purchase a firearm legally. Yes, legally.**

      Truly Soviet of him.

      Delete
    14. He is fond of invoking "the People"......

      Delete
    15. He's the same guy who defended Maoism with claims that Maoist rule prohibited police brutality.

      And of course he uses the phrase "the people" all the time when referring to the tiny group at the top of government, borrowing a page from Red China.

      Delete
    16. He's the same guy who defended Maoism with claims that Maoist rule prohibited police brutality.

      I know he is stupid, but wow. Just wow.

      Mao had the People's Armed Police - the world's largest police force and armed with BTRs, BMPs and older battle tanks - responsible for most of China's genocides under Mao. Mao also had the Red Guards, an organization modeled on Hitler's SA.

      Delete
    17. Yes, it is probably the case that the police under Mao were more brutal and deadly than any other force in history. By far.

      Delete
    18. I never defended Maoism. I never claimed Maoist rule prohibited police brutality. I know the conversation dmarks refers to, so I can say what he claims is 100 percent false. As for the scenario dmarks refers to, I do not know what he's talking about... But it sounds like a probable lie.

      Delete
    19. I'm glad Mr Sanders has done a 180 on this issue, and we move forward.

      Delete
    20. My views on Mao haven't changed even 1 degree.

      Delete
  10. I'm actually fine with background checks under these conditions:

    1) No waiting period beyond the seconds necessary to criminal databases (similar in time length to authenticating your card at an ATM)

    2) No burden or paperwork for the purchaser.

    3) After someone has cleared a background check, every single piece of data pertaining to this check is completely destroyed.

    ------

    I have opposed most background check ideas discussed here since they harass law abiding fun owners for no other reason but to discourage firearm purchases and/or they are used to build a confiscation database. My minimum requirements, I think, prevent these dangers to our rights while effectively stopping criminals from purchasing firearms.

    That seems reasonable. I welcome criticism from those who are vigilant about protecting our rights, but not from those seeking any excuse possible to take them away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well....remember...the calls for 'compromise' have only come from the camp that has steadfastly refused to do so. These calls seem to have tapered off, given their inability to answer for their own actions regarding such.

      Delete
    2. A lot of criminals who use guns steal them, usually from family members and from the very cops that the progressives want to keep guns out of the hands of "civilians" (I hate to use the term because cops are civilians too).

      Delete
    3. I hate to use the term because cops are civilians too.

      You've highlighted yet another broken crutch used by the gun control cabal, when they proffer the meme that "military-style" "assault weapons" [undefined], should only be in the hands of the military.

      Delete
    4. The cabal thinks that all of us are stupid and will never see the flaws of their argument. It may have worked in the past, but deny as the true believers will, it is failing.

      Delete
    5. I'm not consistent, I admit. My views modify, get more mature as I get more knowledge. When I was younger, I was a lot more like Dervish. More emotions and slogans than regards to policy ramifications and law.

      Delete
    6. Change (not Obama's definition) is good. Learning is good. Staticness destroys.

      Delete
    7. Son: Sure beats being wrong and throwing tantrums when it is pointed out.

      Delete
    8. Not sure who dmarks thinks is "throwing tantrums". I bet he is referring to anyone disagreeing with him. In his mind disagreement with gun nuttery = "throwing tantrums". Anyway, I say a rational view on guns definitely beats gun nut insanity... clearly present in the comment in which CI whines about BGCs as "the State mandated requirement to ask permission to exercise one's Constitutional right" then changes his mind completely, saying "I support background checks for retail firearm purchases". That is a 180 degree switch WITHIN THE SAME COMMENT!!!

      Delete
    9. Only in your mind. I see the intrinsic value in requiring retail dealers to have customers pass a NICs. It is also simple fact, that undergoing a NICs is attaining the State's permission to exercise this particular right. It is also, as it's definable as an individuals perspective [which you cannot refute], a hassle.

      When you decide to post a rational view on guns [which again Dervish proffers as fact, but is pure opinion] please let us know.

      Delete
  11. CI: And there you have it. Any opposition to the State mandated requirement to ask permission to exercise one's Constitutional right [but only one Constitutional right] = "murder".

    Wrong. It equals support for people who should not have guns being able to easily obtain them. And murder people. You call it "asking permission" but I call it using taking precautions and a logical method of reducing the number of guns in the wrong hands.

    CI: you claim: "stated belief that there shouldn't be background checks at all". But cannot seem to located said quote... nor dmarks concurrence.

    I assumed you would remember what you said. I guess I gave you too much credit.

    Constitutional Insurgent: ...I pass a background check every time I purchase a firearm, and I consider it a hassle. April 17, 2015 at 11:45 AM

    dmarks: Getting a gun at a gun show or a private dealer is the route a law abiding citizen might go in order to avoid the quite unreasonable roadblocks, harassment, and hassle (placed there by out of line legislators) and exercise his or her basic rights. April 16, 2015 at 6:22 AM


    I also direct you back to the comment YOU JUST MADE! You derisively refer to a BGC as "asking permission". Obviously you believe you should not have to ask permission. So there is another example of a comment in which you oppose BGCs.

    CI: Allow me to help you out. On 5 July, 2014 at 8:15pm, I explicitly stated: I support background checks for retail firearm purchases; I support NICs...

    I did not participate in that conversation. I was going by what you said in the conversation I did participate in. You've changed your mind? But what about the "ask permission" line that came right before you point to your prior comment? I can't be blamed for not knowing what your current position is, given how often you change it.

    dmarks: No waiting period beyond the seconds necessary to criminal databases.

    The Washington Post says it is a little more complicated than that. According to a story on Dylann Roof's gun purchase, "Roof's transaction began when he went to a gun store in West Columbia SC, on April 11. The dealer submitted his biographical information to the NICS, which handles background checks for gun purchases in about 30 states, including South Carolina. Under the law, the FBI has three business days to deny or approve a purchase. If a decision is not made in that time frame, the law permits the dealer to complete the sale".

    A decision was not made in that timeframe due to an error in Roof's narcotics arrest, and the sale (which would have been denied if not for the error) went though. This is what I was talking about. The dmarks' view (which he has now changed to allow for some "hassle") results in someone getting a gun that should not have gotten one. And 8 people died due to the dmarks' stance on BGCs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, you poor thing. I actually feel sorry for you know. You actually seem to think that what you reference above = the assertion you made. Your dots do not connect. You make bold black and white assertions, yet when you realize that you're wrong...you're forced to proffer some hazy emotional rationale. Not that I'm surprised.

      OK....I'm done laughing now. I might let you stay around...it's entertaining.

      My position has been constant. I have never opposed the mandate of retail firearms dealers conducting NICS checks. And when it comes to our enumerated Constitutional rights, I do consider it a burden....just as you would....for a Constitutional right you actually supported.

      You don't like the law regarding background checks? Work to change it. I'm not working to repeal it.

      So one more time.....post your empirical proof, that I have ever stated that I do not support background checks.

      Delete
    2. **And 8 people died due to the dmarks' stance on BGCs.**

      Blaming an innocent person for another person's crime is the height of immaturity.

      Delete
    3. And even then, he never wins a game.

      Delete
    4. Son: I will sleep easily with a light conscience knowing that I and my stance have caused 0 deaths.

      I know already how to take such accusations with the seriousness they are due.

      Delete
    5. Mr. Sanders said: " The dmarks' view....results in someone getting a gun that should not have gotten one"

      Not at all. You are making this up. Your own description of the events mention an ERROR. Errors can happen in any sort of background check system. Your own description sort of destroys the case in favor of background checks. Hmmm.

      Delete
    6. The juiciest irony of all here is that the greatest argument for background checks and the keeping of guns out of the hands of crazy people is wd himself.

      Delete
    7. Maybe not much danger as long as he is happy. And what makes him happy is completely taking over a blog's conversation.

      Delete
    8. I will never undergo a background check in the context of a firearm purchase because I have no desire to own a gun. There is no "juicy irony", only ad hominem. And I had no desire to take over the conversation.

      Being total hypocrites is apparently what makes CI and dmarks happy. CI says "this isn't that playground" right before the "playground" insults (directed at me) start flying fast and furious.

      dmarks: Your own description sort of destroys the case in favor of background checks.

      Wrong. As I noted "the FBI has three business days to deny or approve a purchase. If a decision is not made in that time frame, the law permits the dealer to complete the sale".

      The BGC wasn't completed. "Your own description sort of destroys the case in favor of background checks" = BS.

      Delete
    9. I dare wd to put a sign on his lawn (i.e., his parent's lawn) that says, "gun-free zone". Betcha' he won't.

      Delete
    10. "Gun-free Mom's basement"

      Might sell a lot of these signs to those who lurk on forums.

      Delete
    11. No real argument, only boring ad hominem. Which the proprietor of this blog also engages in ("I'm not certain that he has the faculties to even be cognizant of this however") while chastising others using it when he disagrees with their arguments ("It's actually called being an adult. If you can't make a point without childish pejoratives...stay in the sandbox"). I think a better name for this blog would be "Libertas, Lattes and Hypocrisy". Better yet, what about "gun nuttery and hypocrisy". I think that title would be the MOST accurate.

      Delete
    12. Why would you assert that the previous post is "boring ad hominem", then post the same yourself? I'm not certain that you'll find anyone here who particularly cares what you think of this blog [which you post at frequently].

      Delete
    13. I dare wd to put a sign on his lawn....

      Well, you know that wouldn't happen, because the gun control camp doesn't possess the courage of their convictions. If they did, they would fight for a repeal of the 2A and citizen disarmament via confiscation.

      Delete
    14. "Libertas, Latte, and Hyporcrisy"...

      Actually seems like a good blog name for this blog now. The first two brought by CI, and the third element brought solely by Mr. Sanders as he (sometimes successfully) tries to make this blog about himself instead of issues.

      He brings much of the "gun nuttery" too, as CI brings none himself.

      Delete
    15. Willis: I dare wd to put a sign on his lawn....

      The NRA Myth of Gun-Free Zones.

      CI: ...they would fight for a repeal of the 2A and citizen disarmament via confiscation.

      If CI had the courage of his conviction he would fight to have the phrase "well regulated" removed from the 2A.

      dmarks: ...the third element brought solely by Mr. Sanders...

      The hypocrisy I bring is zero. dmarks does not even know what "hypocrisy" means! Hint: it doesn't mean trying to make something about yourself. In any case, dmarks is making this thread about me, or rather his cartoon strawman version of me (re: He's the same guy who defended Maoism with claims that Maoist rule prohibited police brutality).

      If CI were to retitle his blog based on things commenters said, my vote goes for "Libertas, Lattes, and Bootlicking", as there is a significant amount of this third element brought solely by Mr. Marks.

      Delete
    16. I'll tell you what. Since your lies are getting somewhat tiresome.....you go ahead and post the empirical evidence of what "well regulated" meant, during the drafting of the 2nd Amendment.....and I'll allow you to keep commenting here. It's bad enough that you have refused to provide evidence for your earlier assertions regarding the Founders intent regarding the 2nd Amendment....but allowing continued obfuscation is simply enabling childish behavior.

      Fail to fulfill this one simple request...and your commenting privileges will be suspended.

      Delete
    17. I recognize the fact that C.I. knows far more about firearms and and firearms law than I do. And compared to what little I know. Dervish Sanders knows even less.

      It is really a fool who wouldn't try to learn from those who already have. That is not "bootlicking". If we did what Mr. Sanders preferred, and rejected knowledge, advancement and learning, we'd all still be bashing rocks against rocks in caves.

      Delete
    18. "Bootlicking"

      Projection. The progressive mobs love to do that.

      Delete
    19. Exactly. And socialists boot-lick more than anyone: quickest to worship and defend the privilege of the powerful and buy it without question when a ruler says he is one with " the people"...

      ....and these socialist bootlickers are always the last to question authority or to call to put the brakes on the rampaging Leviathan.

      Delete
    20. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    21. I'd like to thank Dervish Sanders for keeping up his reputation of not linking to news or facts about anything. but to opinion pieces where people make wild assertions that never counter his own. This is kept up by his latest attempt to "prove" something with an opinion piece by the policy advocacy magazine "Mother Jones".

      Which is, of course, akin to Coca Cola "proving' that its drink is better by presenting advertising claiming that it is.... and as fully profound as proving that Republicans are good by telling us that Rush Limbaugh says so.

      Delete
    22. The 2nd Amendment is clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      I too look forward to seeing this evidence that "proves" otherwise.

      Delete
    23. CI said: "Fail to fulfill this one simple request...and your commenting privileges will be suspended."

      I'd like to see this too. However, it'd be a major surprise if he came up with anything. As I said, I used to be like Dervish Sanders on this issue. That was, until I realized that the side I was on, which opposed our basic Constitutional rights concerning firearms, was based on emotion and false accusations and, like mushrooms fed manure in the dark, flourished the less one knew about guns.

      I've been where you are, Dervish, but I decided to make a hard effort to learn the facts, and I grew up.

      Delete
    24. CI: Has Dervish answered your simple request yet?

      Delete
    25. "Well regulated militia"... What percentage of gun owners are in a state militia?

      Delete
    26. ......And, that's your last post here. If you can'y be intellectually mature enough to provide sourcing for your 'assertions-as-fact', you can find solace commenting to your own multiple blogs.

      Post all you like, every one will be deleted.

      Delete
    27. I figured he would make the cabal's usual argument about the National Guard. His silly little comment is even less than I expected.

      His argument and the cabal's NG argument willfully and deceptively omits the Unorganized Militia, which is every able bodied citizen.

      Delete
    28. I used to make the same argument, Son. Before I knew how ridiculous it was.

      Delete
    29. And again you inject your own opinion: "Yet today owning a firearm carries no requirement of training nor of belonging to a militia."

      The Unorganized Militia never required such training, and the 2nd Amendment makes clear that the Right to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infinged.

      Delete
    30. I almost forgot. The exact wording is the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The People. Everyone.

      I thought Dervish was for the people. I guess his vaunted majority does not matter when it gets in the way of the socialist experiment.

      Delete
    31. Yup. The problem with Dervish is [much like earlier discussions] he has a reading comprehension problem. He mistook my request of him.....to provide the sourcing from the era of the drafting .....with his current, shallow reading of the text.

      He, quite simply, fails to understand the premise behind the Amendment. Much like when I asked hm to provide sourcing for the Founders intent for the 2nd Amendment....he failed.

      Delete
    32. Of course, there's the added entertainment value in knowing that Dervish is wasting his time posting false assertions and outright lies....only to be deleted.

      Delete
    33. Oh, c'on Son......you know that convocation of "the People" only applies to unearned entitlements....not the Constitution. /sarc

      I know that you are aware of the intent of the Founders [as evidenced by their writings] of the desire for the right of the citizenry to be armed for their protection and the defense of their nations. Some un-entitled posters have never been aquatinted with the 1903 Militia Act [10 U.S. Code § 311]....much less the Federalist Papers and the Constitution.

      Delete
    34. It's actually sort of humorous.....watching the pathetic cry for attention...by one who fills his empty life with multiple blogs centered on other bloggers....and has to resort to comment to himself.

      Some bedwetter got their lunch money taken one too many times....and it's pushed them over the edge.......

      Delete
    35. Five blogs, all regularly updated with thousand word essays about other bloggers. That's a lot of spare time and quite the obsession on his part.

      Delete
    36. You're in favor of it.

      You're for people being forcibly made defenseless.

      Delete
    37. "Five blogs, all regularly updated with thousand word essays about other bloggers"

      Last I counted, it was more than a dozen. Some of the ones he follows that looks like they are someone else are really him too. And his idols not only get blogs devoted to sock puppet charicatures of them. they also get separate "Response Page" blogs.

      Delete
    38. ".... for them not getting gun murdered..."

      More comments from Mr. Sanders lacking any cognitive connection to anything real. All of us here oppose murder, regardless of the weapon used.

      CI, can he do better than completely false, slanderous accusations that are completely refuted by facts and evidence?

      Delete
    39. I still dare ya', wd. And Mother Jones wants us to swallow hook, line, and sinker that all of these episodes are purely coincidences. Yeah, right.

      Delete
    40. And the reason that militias existed in the late 18th Century is because the people didn't trust a) the federal government and b) a standing military force - both of whom they thought were capable of great tyranny, AND THEY WERE RIGHT!

      Delete
  12. Mr. Obama might have also mentioned the fact that the Armenians (under the Turks) and Ukrainians (under Stalin) also surrendered their firearms and that it didn't necessarily work out all that well for those folks (if the dude was intellectually honest and he isn't).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Turks deliberately made it a Catch 22 situation for the Armenians.


      Armenians who did not register their firearms were treated as enemies and shot and Armenians who did were charged with treason (their registration being used as "evidence" of their "crime") and shot. It was not about guns or control, it was about extermination.

      Delete
    2. The Ukrainians are another case of gun confiscation (why legitimize the cabal and use their term of "control?") leading to extermination. The Holomodor. Then of course there is the National Socialists and the Jews too.

      Delete
    3. Son: Both groups doing what you describe were quintessential socialists.

      Delete
    4. No they weren't. Look up socialism in the dictionary and you will find no mention of "extermination".

      Proof:

      Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

      Notice there is zero mention of "extermination"?

      Delete
    5. The socialist "community" can never include everyone. Those perceived to be a danger to the "community" are removed, either for punishment or permanently.

      On the surface, exclusion would be criminals and other genuine dangers to the community. In practice, the definition of criminal can never be constant, because no two people ever agree 100%. It is all too easy for those who are narcissistic to gain leadership positions in the community. These leaders all too often by play on the emotions of the crowd, since only a minority have the strength to fight their own emotions and desires and think objectively.

      Socialism's failure immediately falls victim to human nature, long before the finite value of the socialist economy drains.

      Delete
    6. Exactly, Son. And "community" in that definition means those few who rule, as the people ( each individual) in the community, under socialism, are denied control over their own personal property and decisions.

      Son, the socialist "community" typically means a tiny handful at the top enjoying unlimited guns and money and power, which they deny to everyone else.

      Yes you are right about socialism's failure. It often means a bloodbath too. Only a fool would ignore that the main, most influential individuals in the socialist movement include Mao, Lenin, Hitler, and Stalin.

      Delete
    7. What makes dmarks happy is obviously equating socialism and mass murder. Also lying about people he doesn't like supporting the rulers under which said mass murdering took place. This is clearly a fetish of his. FYI, there has never been any mass killing under any ruler promising anything like Libertarianism because no such ruler has ever been able to gain any kind of mass appeal. Most people reject Libertarian-like ideas upon hearing them, recognizing them immediately as foolish, unworkable, and beneficial primiarly to the wealthy. Socialism, on the other hand, has always been popular. This explains why so many dictators have presented themselves to the people as Socialists... It is what the people wanted. Unfortunately these rulers lied and ended up delivering a perverted form of Socialism that benefited mainly themselves.

      Delete
    8. Socialism's short lived popularity arises from groupthink. Groupthink amplifies the lack of objectivity most people have. Crowd psychology emphasizes deindividualization -- the temptation to surrender one's self to something greater -- and the bystander effect, the tendency to "hand off" one's personal responsibility to others, usually leaders. At best, the bystander effect leads to neglect and at its worst it enables ordinary people to commit atrocities ("we are only following orders").

      The community eventually takes on so much importance that it because acceptable to sacrifice others against their will for the "greater good." Narcissists direct this behavior against their personal enemies (such as Adolf Hitler, against the Jews) but even well intentioned socialists end up encouraging this behavior because of their blind faith in "the system."

      Few want to be sacrificed against their will or to be told what they can and cannot do in their private lives, and even believers in socialism tend to convert when it is their turn to be sacrificed without their consent.

      Delete
    9. Son: Excellent comment. Based on the historic record, which is certainly one of the stumbling blocks for any advocate of socialism.

      Delete
    10. "Son of Liberty" is referring to the cult phenomenon. A cult can use any ideology to brainwash its adherents. Stalinism and Maoism both fall into the "cult of personality" category. Some here are members of the gun cult (I refer to these people as "gun nuts"). Describing the aspects of cultism isn't an indictment of Socialism, it is an indictment of cultism. Personally, I believe the cult of Libertarianism is more a danger to our country than any cult associated with Socialism. Libertarianism has infected the Republican party and many of our plutocrats subscribe to it (and fund Republican presidential candidates). On this very blog we see examples of individuals willing to sacrifice their economic well being (or the economic well being of their fellow citizens) for the good of the plutocrats. They argue quite vociferously in favor of doing this, in fact.

      Personally, I consider myself a democratic Socialist. Democracy + Socialism = not a cult. And no "stumbling block".

      Delete
    11. Groupthink does not need a personality cult. The Khmer Rogue leaders hid themselves. Their Mao-like plan was so extreme that even Maoists tried to convince them to stop, but they were supported by the rural peasants, who viewed everyone from the cities as "class enemies," regardless of their economic status. Pol Pot's regime was by far the most tragic of all socialist experiments, with 30% of the country's population worked to death or clubbed.

      Delete
    12. Of course, Dervish's evidence that there is a "gun cult" or a "cult of Libertarianism" is the exact evidence he proffers that Socialism "isn't a cult". His opinion.

      That he continually attempts to couch it in terms of fact, only illustrates his comedic value here.

      Delete
    13. The extermination happens in socialism as a very typical result of the definition Dervish Sanders has cherry picked.

      When the "means of production" (people's personal property and the individual right to make decisions concerning it) are taken away by the State (far and away the most common form of "Community" in socialism), the people of course don't like it. And when the people object or drag their feet in giving to the jackboots when the jackboots come to steal, they get killed.

      Or they get killed merely for bring hard working and successful in the first place, because under the cult of socialism, these people... the real working class..., are sinners to rob and/or kill.

      While those who do little and beg a lot are the saints.

      Does that about describe socialism, Son?

      Delete
    14. Envy is a huge part of socialism's initial popularity, and a major factor in the hatred displayed toward the productive, yes. Without envy or coveteousness, we would have no drive to succeed, but the line between envy and hatred is a very narrow one.

      Delete
    15. ... a narrow line which socialist demagogues quickly and constantly urge people to cross.

      Delete
    16. Son said: "The Turks deliberately made it a Catch 22 situation for the Armenians."

      The Armenian Genocide has its supporters in the modern progressive movement. Cenk Uygur, a radical progressive AND Turkish racial nationalist, even named a TV program to honor the group that organized and carried out the Armenian genocide: "The Young Turks"

      He has gone in record denying the Armenian genocide, and prefers to run away when questions about it are asked.

      Apologists for Cenk claim that the "Young Turks" name has nothing to do with the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide, but it is in the non-political sense meaning young upstarts.

      Well, that works if you are Rod Stewart, but not if you are a radical Turkish nationalist with a record of supporting the genocide carried out by the real Young Turks.

      Cenk, a progressive icon, has specific statements on this subject which include

      "The claims of an Armenian Genocide are not based on historical facts. If the history of the period is examined it becomes evident that in fact no such genocide took place"

      Delete
  13. Son, of course Pol Pot's regime is a natural and logical conclusion of socialism. Not rare or a corruption of it.

    It's what you get when you start down the road of scapegoating innocent people for persecution (the falsely labelled "plutocrats" seen in comments on this blog, and more famously Jews, Kulaks, etc) and organize society to appeal to people's worst base materialistic, nature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is just one of the many possible peeks into the real world of what happens when socialists scapegoat and target for destruction the supposed "rich"

      Delete
    2. No, I do not believe this. I am thankful that this country is one of the least socialist on the planet, so those who work hard and earn a lot as a result of it aren't targeted for harassment.

      I can see, that as Son has referred to, you are dripping with hatred for a group of innocent people you have targeted for persecution.

      Delete
    3. "Perkins once wrote a romance novel" -- progressives showing their hatred of all things loving and sexual again.

      The article also claims there is no intolerance for the "1%" while decrying the fact that he is a 1%er. A classic case of gaslighting.

      Delete
    4. Exactly, Son. The socialist / Occupy types foment hatred of these people merely for their income, and achievement. Without any regard to whether or not they have done anything wrong. Which is so similar to the nature of what the Nazis did to Jews, only different in the extreme. It is dangerous and stupid to do, regardless of the level.

      Delete
    5. Son said: ""Perkins once wrote a romance novel"

      I followed that link too. Was rather crazy and rambling. All it did was prove how nuts these people where. and it was good evidence that progressives of that stripe are further down the road to Pol Pot than I had thought.

      I was recently in a similar argument in a blog. and for standing up for our rights, a progressive said that i would be one of the first ones shot when the revolution came. Well, thinking of that, it's clear that progressives are way down the road to Pol Pot...

      Delete
    6. A lot of things about the "culture war" bother me because they are designed to keep people fighting each other and nothing more. A lot of people on both sides see a need to invade and control the private lives of others, but the progressives are among the worst invaders of the bedroom.

      The progressive's end game is one where there is the complete deprivation of all personal relationships, because they are perceived to undermine a person's dedication to the party/nation/race/community. http://www.sol1776.blogspot.com/p/not-so-free-love-progressive-prudes.html

      And yes, I am not surprised that already there are some who want to go full Pol Pot. It lurks below the surface.

      Delete
    7. "And yes, I am not surprised that already there are some who want to go full Pol Pot. It lurks below the surface."

      Recalling the Wisconsin right-to-work protests, where a tiny angry violent mob... a progressive one... tried to destroy the Constitutional process of representative government. All to preserve the "status quo" where Wisconsin workers were forced to join a corrupt campaign fundraising scheme under threat of firing. (the former situation where Wisconsin workers were forced to pay union dues against their will)

      In this thuggish act in favor of a truly awful cause, the progressive "want to go full Pol Pot" was about to boil over.

      Luckily for the future of our republic, and our rights, a strong majority of the people (especially working people) in Wisconsin reject the progressive, anti-worker-rights, agenda.

      Delete
    8. Not one person was murdered during these protests, let alone thousands (which I think would be necessary to even consider labeling the protestors "going full Pol Pot".

      Delete
    9. True, but note I said that the hatred of those brownshirt-like protesters was "about to boil over". Not that it actually had.

      Delete
  14. The majority of the Nazi vote in 1933 was from the poor who were convinced that Jewish owned big businesses were responsible for Germany's misfortune.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, son. And it is all related: scapegoating and attacking the perceived "rich", Jews, those of Chinese descent in Singapore, and countless other examples. And the damage, deaths, and everything caused by this persecution exceeds the damage done by the scapegoat victims a hundredfold.

      Delete
    2. It should also be pointed out, Son, that when the socialism is in full flower, the poor also die in much greater numbers than the rich. But I bet you know this...

      Delete
    3. All it creates is mutual poverty for all. Poverty leads to starvation and is generally used to justify MORE tyranny, to reduce the number of mouths to be fed.

      Delete
    4. Very true. Mutual poverty for all. Castro's Cuba, a beacon of hope for the hard left/progressives, has traditionally been a country where the tiny handful of rulers had wealth and power almost unmatched on the planet, while the working man/families/etc were subjected to abject poverty by law: with harsh punishment for anyone working hard, being productive, and enjoying the fruits of his/her labor.

      Mutual poverty for all.

      Delete
    5. In addition to forced poverty, communist Cuba was also racist and homophobic http://www.sol1776.blogspot.com/p/not-so-heroic-real-che-guevara.html

      Delete
    6. It's a while power paradise too. 50% or more black, right? And in its socialist era... supposedly enlightened.... a couple of white guys have held absolute power.

      Delete
    7. Son; Guavara also enjoyed his hobby of raping women. Something common among socialist leaders.

      Delete
    8. Self admitted too. I will have to add that to my "Not So Egalitarian" article. Thanks!

      Delete
    9. By reducing the amount of people who burdens it, generally the most important. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others

      Delete
  15. Son: I've done a lot of research on Che as well. In ways, he was a more modern-era Columbus: A harbinger of brutal colonialism forced on Latin America by a European power (this time, the socialists in Moscow) that left nothing but human misery and mass slaughter in its wake.

    Socialism is of course the worst, most deadly idea to come out of Europe, and it brings nothing but misery to the third world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a very good comparison. Latin America has never completely recovered from forced socialist experiments, and Cuba is still communist with its institutionalized racism and homophobia.

      Delete
    2. Venezuela has also tiled down this destructive path of fascism. Remember Chavez, going all medieval, bashing Jews as "Christ Killers".

      Delete
    3. It is very rare to see socialism and Christianity blend. Usually socialism and religion are enemies (even in Nazi Germany, Christians who did not support the perversion called the Reich Church were also sent to the concentration camps and gassed).

      However, the Vatican is becoming this way too, not just Venezuela. Socialism mixed with theocracy tends to be uniquely nasty. By uniquely, I mean, making the Nazis become taken aghast at the severity of atrocities, as the Catholic Croatian Nazi Collaborators did in WWII.

      Delete
    4. There was a lot of German Catholic "look the other way" concerning the German socialist atrocities of the mid-20th century.... going very high up into the Roman Catholic heirarchy, unfortunately.

      And religion and left-wing fascism also were hand in hand in the once-trendy "liberation theology" of the 1980s. It was essentially "Soviet Imperialism for Christ"... not grassroots. of course, but greated by the KGB.

      http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-soviet-spy-we-created-liberation-theology-83634/

      Hundreds of thousands died in the Soviet colonial efforts against Latin America in the time from the end of WW2 to the fall of the USSR.

      Chavez and his successor and Evo Morales have been trying to bring high levels of misery and slaughter to Latin Amercia to continue the bad effort, but it has been a lot harder for them without "Daddy Moscow" to unite them and fund it.

      Delete
  16. Now, let's steer this back on track

    Definition of fascism:
    -----------
    "fas·cism (făsh′ĭz′əm)
    n.
    1. often Fascism
    a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
    b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
    2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
    -----------

    Many definitions of "Fascism" contain the qualifier "right-wing", which is the most superficial characteristic, a sort of window dressing. That is why I use the term 'left-wing fascism" to refer to the left-type of fascism (in reference to the more proper definition I quoted above) or to refer to a system which is identical to the fascism in some definitions (which requires "right wing") but lacking this least important qualifier.

    Because when the government is taking away your rights, does it matter much at all if it is in the name of Karl Marx's scriptures (left fascism) or to empower the Fuhrer (right-fascism) ?

    Australia's gun policy definitely falls under the definition of fascism, as it involves "centralization of authority" over the personal decision of firearm ownership.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fascism is designed to have a broad appeal. However both secular progressive fascism and hypernationalist "traditionalist" (I use that term loosely, see below) fascism seek to suppress personal freedom in favor of the impersonal group (be it community, nation, religion or race).

      Social conservatism in Fascism is not the same as social conservatism in conservatism. Tradition is more or less "zombified" to serve the Fascist mob. Fascists believe that the that the family is nothing more than a cog in the greater Reich, and demand that the needs of the Reich come before the family. They maintain tight control over families by deciding who can marry who, usually for racial reasons, and indoctrinating children to believe that Reich comes before family.

      A fascinating view of how tenuous family really is under Fascism comes from Melita Maschmann, whose account was featured heavily in the show Last Days of the Nazis.

      Delete
    2. Son: It is interesting how the definition of socialism given in a comment above:

      "Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

      is ultra-fascist, as in this, the rulers own all property, and the people, none. One must truly be a sort of nihilistic sociopath to actually want this system.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.