A Gun -control exchange from Tuesday nightís Democratic presidential debate:


PDA






chieftain
January 18, 2008, 04:31 AM
How can you tell when a Dimocrat is trying to reduce your use of or completely take you guns from you

Of course, their mouth is moving.

Go figure.

Fred


The Wall Street Journal:

Notable &Quotable
January 17, 2008

A Gun -control exchange from Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate:

MODERATOR TIM RUSSERT: Sen. Clinton, when you ran for the Senate in 2000, you said that everyone who wishes to purchase a gun should have a license, and that every handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry. Will you try to implement such a plan?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I am against illegal guns, and illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country. I also am a political realist and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street, get them out of the hands of young people.

The law in New York was as you state, and the law in New York has worked to a great extent. I don't want the federal government pre-empting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems.

So here's what I would do. We need to have a registry that really works with good information about people who are felons, people who have been committed to mental institutions like the man in Virginia Tech who caused so much death and havoc. We need to make sure that that information is in a timely manner, both collected and presented.
We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers. This is something that I would like to see more of. And we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. I would also work to reinstate the assault-weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they're back on the streets.

So there are steps we need to take that we should do together. You know, I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this.

RUSSERT: But you've backed off a national licensing registration plan?
CLINTON: Yes.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120053364436796229.html

If you enjoyed reading about "A Gun -control exchange from Tuesday nightís Democratic presidential debate:" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BobbyQuickdraw
January 18, 2008, 05:27 AM
Having a registry of every gun owned in America (and/or the ballistic fingerprint data) is said to be so massive that even modern computers couldn't handle the search parameters. It's millions of entries, with each entry having dozens of variables.

Even if it worked, they say it would be so slow you're better off not even using it.

precisionshootist
January 18, 2008, 06:45 AM
Having a registry of every gun owned in America (and/or the ballistic fingerprint data) is said to be so massive that even modern computers couldn't handle the search parameters. It's millions of entries, with each entry having dozens of variables.

Even if it worked, they say it would be so slow you're better off not even using it.


I don't think computing power (data storage) would be a problem at all as far as a registry. Today we have PC's (Terabyte hard drives) that could handle the registry part, as far as ballistic data on every gun well that would take something larger for sure but easily done these days.

novaDAK
January 18, 2008, 07:12 AM
Doesn't the '68 GCA or '86 FOPA prohibit the federal government from having a national gun registry? I know one of those two says something about it.

And I find it rediculous that Hillary thinks that criminals magically didn't have "assault weapons" for the 10 years during the ban, and then when it finally expired, magically got "assault weapons" again.

The ban didn't work. The USDOJ even did a study that supported this fact.

LeonCarr
January 18, 2008, 07:29 AM
The motto at our house is Anyone but Hillary

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

dmftoy1
January 18, 2008, 07:47 AM
Quote:
Having a registry of every gun owned in America (and/or the ballistic fingerprint data) is said to be so massive that even modern computers couldn't handle the search parameters. It's millions of entries, with each entry having dozens of variables.

Even if it worked, they say it would be so slow you're better off not even using it.


I don't think computing power (data storage) would be a problem at all as far as a registry. Today we have PC's (Terabyte hard drives) that could handle the registry part, as far as ballistic data on every gun well that would take something larger for sure but easily done these days.

Yup, trust me, I do this every day . . .that wouldn't even be close to a complex database to implement. The data entry would be a nightmare, but the size/volume is nothing.

Just to give you something to compare against . . every night the various telephone companies process call records for EVERY phone call placed through their system every day to assess things like whether they need to charge another provider, etc. We recently proved that one of these systems could actually run on a high end PC. The throughput of that system would be dwarfing any gun registry.

Just my .02

Regards,
Dave

Claude Clay
January 18, 2008, 08:30 AM
+1 dmftoy1

i have 3 cell phones with verizon and can go on line 24/7/60 and reference any day /time call was made or received or texted or....even if call was within a few minutes . and thats wireless. registration, very doable teckno wise.

Drail
January 18, 2008, 08:38 AM
We stopped those evil illegal guns for awhile and now THEY'RE BACK. Is common-sensical a word?

Standing Wolf
January 18, 2008, 08:43 AM
The fundamental issue has nothing to do with technology, everything to do with the leftist extremists' clearly stated goal of disarming the commoners.

The statement:

You know, I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this.


is nothing but the most recent reincarnation of that Kerry creature's photo opportunity to pose in hunting garb during the 2004 election. Like all leftist extremists, Mrs. Snopes Clinton will say or do anything to acquire power.

I've to confess, I haven't seen a so-called "lesser of two evils" to date other than Ron Paul.

EOTechRulesAll
January 18, 2008, 08:49 AM
The Canadian firearms registry cost about $2 billion dollars as of 2004/2005, just from 2002 onwards...

They have perhaps 8 million firearms and 32 million people in Canada.

In the USA we have anywhere from 200 to 400 million firearms, and anywhere from 320 to 380 million people (the census bureau really has no idea, and nobody will admit the true number of illegals, lest they cause a huge alarm, rather than just some small resentment over a "few million" which they see as tolerable).



It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars in the USA to get a system into place, assure it was accurate, and to maintain and update it...

EOTechRulesAll
January 18, 2008, 08:52 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_gun_registry#Use_of_the_registry

geojap
January 18, 2008, 09:04 AM
Just for the record, I obviously am completely against more gun control of any form in the USA. I am furthermore very concerned what may happen if a Democrat is elected president.

However, in response to some who stated that building the database would not be possible with current technology (databases and associated software), that isn't true. You're talking about several hundred million records, with several relational tables. Almost any serious database could handle this job, it would just have to be designed correctly, which isn't hard if you know what you are doing.

Bitmap
January 18, 2008, 09:40 AM
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I am against illegal guns . .
INTERVIEWER: Define "illegal guns".
HILLARY CLINTON: Any gun except the ones carried by my bodyguards.

ceetee
January 18, 2008, 09:47 AM
Let's just see, now...

Well, I am against illegal guns,

Great. Me, too.

I also am a political realist and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street

Yes, we like our guns, and want to keep them. Thanks.

I don't want the federal government pre-empting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems.

That works for me. I don't want you in my business, either.

We need to have a registry that really works with good information about people who are felons, people who have been committed to mental institutions

Okay, here we're getting a bit tricky. IF it was possible to have such a "people registry", with a list of felons (et al) in it, and IF such a list coul dbe 100% accurate, and IF we had in place a system to redress any inaccuracies in it, and IF such a list could be constantly updated such that people could fall off the list when they no longer meet the proper criteria, than I MAY be tempted to actually agree with having one. That's a whole lotta IF's, though.

We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers.

I agree.

And we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books.

Wow - we agree on a lotta stuff, here!

I would also work to reinstate the assault-weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they're back on the streets.

And..... she lost me. She obviously has no idea of what the actual AWB did, she has no idea of what kinds of crime we and our brethren in the law enforcement community face, and she has no idea of how to fight that crime.

I'll pass.

This is the first election that I can remember where I can honestly say that there is NO candidate I feel strongly enough to vote for above a write-in for Mickey Mouse.

Dravur
January 18, 2008, 10:27 AM
Anyone but a Dem.

Id vote for a ham sandwich over the Hildabeast

Halffast
January 18, 2008, 10:34 AM
Monica Lewinski's ex-boyfriend's wife for President!:barf:

RKBABob
January 18, 2008, 10:40 AM
This is the first election that I can remember where I can honestly say that there is NO candidate I feel strongly enough to vote for above a write-in for Mickey Mouse.Whoa! That's a really cool idea. I might actually do that, depending on which Republi-Crat twins get the nomination.... eh, maybe I'll vote for the lesser of two evils to keep Billary out.

Thylacine
January 18, 2008, 10:47 AM
Dravur that is not fair!



I like ham sandwiches.

She should be forced to prove her statements about assault weapons.

Anyone but a DEM, will be how I vote yet again. Sigh.

Old Fuff
January 18, 2008, 10:50 AM
First we make this massive database with all the names of every prohibited person in the United States, and keep it up to date on a daily basis.

Then we require that ALL firearms transfers (private sales, gifts, everything) be subject to a background check using our super database.

And as a result those prohibited persons won't be able to get guns - except of course the illegal ones, which is exactly what criminals do. They supply themselves through their own black market. But don't bring that up.

Illegal dealer = anyone who sells a firearm who isn't a FFL. We need to have a paper trail on EVERY gun in the country before we can do what we really want too do.

Making it so the government has a record of every gun in the country is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd. amendment.

New York, and in particular - New York City - are perfect examples of places that have ideal gun control laws, and they really, really work...

As the man said, any time a Democrat candidate opens their mouth... :banghead:

GunTech
January 18, 2008, 11:02 AM
For those of you who think it's only the dems that want to restrict or eliminate you gun rights, keep in mind that the Whitehouse is basically supporting DC against Heller. And ever Republican candidate but two have basically supported some form of gun restriction.

grimjaw
January 18, 2008, 11:04 AM
BobbyQuickdraw, the others are right. I used to work with the database that kept images of the paper records on every US military retiree in the USA, plus their annuitants. SEVERAL variables for each person, linked to another database that actually dealt with doling out pay. The contractor i worked for wrote it, using mostly off the shelf products and no hardware out of the ordinary. Plenty of computers out there faster now (my laptop has as much RAM as a couple of those servers). We were contractually required to keep response times under 1.5 seconds for the production environment.

What she supports and what she would SIGN if it came across her desk, could be two entirely different things.

jm

GBExpat
January 18, 2008, 11:11 AM
I would also work to reinstate the assault-weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they're back on the streets.

I sure hope someone(s) with media visibility is loudly calling BS on such ridiculous statements.

MD_Willington
January 18, 2008, 11:12 AM
Canada has MORE than 8 million firearms... maybe 8 million registered...

On average, from the people I know, they own 3 or more EACH.. most own 5+

I owned 3 non registered firearms in Canada...

Plenty more are NOT registered...

Old Fuff
January 18, 2008, 11:49 AM
Gun Tech:

While the Republican candidates may not be poster boys for gun rights, they are far more moderate then the three leading Democrats. It is probably safe to say that the winner in Novemberís election will be a candidate from one of the two major parties. We will be far better off if that person is a Republican rather then a Democrat Ė unless there is a substantial change in the picture from what it is now.

Master Blaster
January 18, 2008, 11:58 AM
We need a system to check for a crimminal record?
Where the he77 has this lying moron been for the last 10 years?

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm#top

Yes if we only made it illegal for crimminals to use guns to commit crimes there wouldnt be any crime. Just like the drug prohibition has prevented folks from using illegal drugs since 1919.

How anyone can vote for a person who would say such incredibly stupid false things is beyond me.

#shooter
January 18, 2008, 12:09 PM
I was sort of with her until the AWB. it didnt do anything then and it shows she just doesnt get it or cant resist mentioning to show her dem props.

chieftain
January 18, 2008, 12:33 PM
For those of you who think it's only the dems that want to restrict or eliminate you gun rights, keep in mind that the Whitehouse is basically supporting DC against Heller. And ever Republican candidate but two have basically supported some form of gun restriction.


Not one pro Gun Democrat Supreme Court Justice. Not all the Republican Justices are pro gun either. All the Pro gun Justices are Republican. Do the math. Not only the President but the CongressCritters need to be Republican too.

No guarantee with a Republican either. But there is no hope with a Democrat.

Even your CongressCritters, even though there is a small number of pro gun Democrats, or some that say they are pro gun, to get elected. When they vote for conformation of a pro gun Supreme Courts justice, they will vote against him/her for other reasons, mainly because they are a Republican. For the handful of Democrats that may in fact be an exception, and I do mean 1 or 2.

So there it is folks, we are stuck with the Republicans. There are many other issues, and each American must decide for themselves.

ME?

I vote pro gun. That is why I am registered Republican and vote in the Republican Primaries. Because that is where the only hope of keeping my guns resides.

I am a civil rights activist, and I am Pro Gun. I am the NRA too. They ain't perfect either. But they have been doing more for my right ot keep my guns than any other organization. Training, Safety, Competition, and Legal rights. If you are pro gun and not a member of the NRA, you are blowing smoke. It doesn't mean don't belong and support other groups. It means belong to the NRA. It is the 400 lbs Gorilla that even the anti gun/civil rights folks listen to. That's all.

Go figure.

Fred

-terry
January 18, 2008, 12:52 PM
Boy, you one-issue voters are really something. Have you guys forgotten already the mess Bushy has put us in? Another Republican? Sheesh.

General Geoff
January 18, 2008, 01:16 PM
Gun rights are often considered the most important, for without them, all else is lost to attrition.

fletcher
January 18, 2008, 01:30 PM
I don't want the federal government pre-empting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems.
Now if only she would apply that reasoning to all of her other policies.

chieftain
January 18, 2008, 01:32 PM
Boy, you one-issue voters are really something. Have you guys forgotten already the mess Bushy has put us in? Another Republican? Sheesh.

Illegal aliens? How would the Dimocrats be an improvement?
Excessive spending? How would the Dimocrats be an improvement?
The global War on Terrorism? Besides surrendering, How would the Dimocrats be an improvement?

Just what do you REALLY BELIEVE the Dimocrats do better. Beside surrender, raise taxes, and give away more of my money? Just what does any Dimocrat offer?

Go figure.

Fred

ceetee
January 18, 2008, 01:34 PM
Gun rights are often considered the most important, for without them, all else is lost to attrition.

They're ALL important. The minute you diminish one right, by placing others ahead of it in importance, you diminish them all.

GTSteve03
January 18, 2008, 01:53 PM
All of you "as long as I have my guns" types are really :cuss:-ing off the rest of us that would like to see our freedom of speech and protection from illegal search/seizures come back.

Hell, I'd figure most of you "from my cold dead hands" types would want a Democrat to actually try and get a gun ban passed, that way you could fulfill your fantasies of holding off a bunch of JBTs single-handedly.

Some of us would rather work towards getting a President that respects the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION, rather than one that just has an R next to his name. :banghead:

Deer Hunter
January 18, 2008, 01:53 PM
Every feel-good legislation brought to light for the cameras becomes horribly skwewed and woefully inclusive to a point where the legislation becomes corrupted and misused. Think about the ADA. In this legislation, if I have trouble operating a phone, I can be labeled as a disabled person and park in all the good places.

Route 66
January 18, 2008, 01:55 PM
How anyone can vote for a person who would say such incredibly stupid false things is beyond me.


I think part of the answer to that is there is a huge number of the voting eligible public that are clueless on a particular issue. 2A seems to fit that bill. For example, I had my 82 year old mother-in-law and my 45 year brother-in-law complete the survey on electoralcompass.com. They both answered the question of "Should semi-automatic weapons be banned?" They both answered with a resounding "Completely Agree". I asked them both, do you understand what a semi-automatic is? They said of course, it goes rata-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat. I said no that's a fully automatic weapon AKA a machine gun. And that semi-automatic would include things like pistols, rifles and shotguns. Their response was, it doesn't matter we don't like guns anyway.

What that tells me is that if someone is generally resistant to an issue a politician providing dubious facts only reinforces the person's belief, lie or not. In other words, tell me what I want to hear. The truth sometimes seems to be an inconvenient nusance.

Dravur
January 18, 2008, 03:05 PM
Some of us would rather work towards getting a President that respects the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION, rather than one that just has an R next to his name.

and that is definitely one of the dem candidates.

<sarcasm off>

SWMAN
January 18, 2008, 03:14 PM
Clinton doesn't have a clue. Her gun control ideas are about as intelligent as her proposal to freeze home mortgage interest rates.

BobbyQuickdraw
January 18, 2008, 03:17 PM
I can't find it now, but I had read about the technical limitations of the database, in regards to the microstamping. Though I found an article similar to it that was dated 2002, so my info was probably a good bit out of date. The tech is probably there to handle some aspects of it, but that doesn't change this fact about the CA database:

A California Department of Justice survey, using 742 guns used by the California Highway Patrol as a test bed, showed very poor results; even with such a limited database, less than 70% of cases of the same make as the "fingerprint" case yielded the correct gun in the top 15 matches; when a different make of ammunition was used, the success rate dropped to less than 40%. California has passed a bill AB 1471 which requires all new models of handguns to be equipped with microstamping technology by 2010.

rdhood
January 18, 2008, 03:22 PM
I would also work to reinstate the assault-weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they're back on the streets.
I sure hope someone(s) with media visibility is loudly calling BS on such ridiculous statements.

yeah, thats the statement I got stuck on, too. I've seen the stats, and this is a boldfaced lie. Two things happen, though: 1) the media will NOT call her out on this statement and 2) a statement that goes unchallenged (by the media) essentially becomes "truth" to those who don't bother to actually check these things out. The mainstream media is complicit in the lie.

usmarine0352_2005
January 18, 2008, 03:28 PM
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I am against illegal guns . .
INTERVIEWER: Define "illegal guns".
HILLARY CLINTON: Any gun except the ones carried by my bodyguards.

Sadly, I think many of the public will believe Hilary's CRAP, that she doesn't want to ban all guns, only "illegal guns".

Everyone else knows that all Hilary wants to do is BAN ALL GUNS.

punchdrunk
January 18, 2008, 03:34 PM
Too bad no one knowledgeable enough could call
Rodham on her nonsense about the semi auto rifle ban.

You hear about Hilary "rodham" clinton. Lotta people talk about George "w"
Bush. William "jefferson" clinton. But you never hear anyone talk about Barack "Hussien" Obama. Its almost like this anti-gun loony is ashamed of his own middle name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

TwitchALot
January 18, 2008, 03:43 PM
Sadly, I think many of the public will believe Hilary's CRAP, that she doesn't want to ban all guns, only "illegal guns".

Everyone else knows that all Hilary wants to do is BAN ALL GUNS.

Even I believe her when she says that. The difference is that I think she's going to try to make all guns illegal, and then of course, go after those "illegal guns." You have to watch for these political loopholes, marine. :rolleyes:

22-rimfire
January 18, 2008, 03:48 PM
We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers. This is something that I would like to see more of. And we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. I would also work to reinstate the assault-weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they're back on the streets.

So there are steps we need to take that we should do together. You know, I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this.

RUSSERT: But you've backed off a national licensing registration plan?
CLINTON: Yes.
(Underlined items added for emphasis.)

As I recall, it was Bill Clinton that started forcing more restrictions on FFL holders through the ATFE. Prior to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton (remember, this is where she got all her "experience".) normal folks could qualify for a FFL and could essentially buy and sell at gun shows exclusively or simply order guns for friends through their license. As I understand it, that all stopped with Bill & Hillary Clinton... all of a sudden you needed a store, hours posted etc.

Hillary infers that "we" stopped assault weapons from getting into the hands of criminals and now police deaths have increased during the Bush administration. Bunch of BS and political double talk.

So, now she doesn't want national registration and licensing of handguns?? She might not lead the charge due to politics at the moment, but she would certainly support it as a "reasonable" approach to keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. More BS. She has not changed, period. She never will. She is a socialist.

dmftoy1
January 18, 2008, 03:54 PM
Yup, one of those kitchen table FFL's here that fled during the Clinton years . . . .basically what the Clinton's did that I had never seen in any prior administration is that they used every "executive order" loophole they could to further their agenda, whether it was to shut down the gun industry or to close off BLM lands to four wheel drive access. If you want to find another group who felt persecuted by the Clinton's talk to the members of UFWDA.

One they ran out of "executive orders" then they decided to use the justice department . . .they sued the heck out of big tobacco and were poised to do the same to the gun industry and ran out of time.

Just my .02

Regards,
Dave

K3
January 18, 2008, 04:03 PM
Some of us would rather work towards getting a President that respects the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION, rather than one that just has an R next to his name.

Assuming there was a viable candidate that fit this criteria....

I like Ron Paul, but mainstream party types marginalized the guy early on, and it's awfully hard to come back from that. Especially when he has brain pharts and starts sounding like a kook when he opens his mouth. Regardless of whether or not his views have substance behind them, and regardless of whther or not a conspiracy is real, if you go talking about conspiracies, the sheep will not follow you. Especially when the media is one of the shepherds.

It seems the choices are 'dumb' and 'dumber' as far as a candidate's knowledge and respect for the USC and the fouonders' vision and intentions for this nation are concerned.

It won't be long until we're no different than the socialist nanny states in Yurope. We're well on our way already.

SamTuckerMTNMAN
January 18, 2008, 04:17 PM
Having a registry of every gun owned in America (and/or the ballistic fingerprint data) is said to be so massive that even modern computers couldn't handle the search parameters. It's millions of entries, with each entry having dozens of variables.


Not a prob. DOn't forget the NSA can siphon off every single phone and email communication in the US and much of the world and filter it almost instantly, record it, locate the speaker sender, and log all activities for a period of time. Britain keeps such records for a year. Keeping a registry of weapons, while expensive, is not too difficult because of computing power.

Basically it all boils down to this.

Psychopathic power mongers are going to continue to try to disarm free Americans continuously for all time as a necessary step before violent implementation of political control tactics. The more you resist and alert other free men and women and stay involved the more the fighting war is postponed.

I say fighting war not because people will fight to save guns necessarily, but because the final, end result, will be worth fighting for - only then, we won't be armed if they have their way.

ST

22-rimfire
January 18, 2008, 04:36 PM
IF there was a registry, you'd have local newspapers developing lists of gun owners or grouping them by numbers... as a pubic service under the freedom of information act just like they did with concealed carry licenses here in TN. Next, law enforcement would come around if you had kids to verify that they were locked up (if there was such a law) or if you lived near a school etc. Don't you guys know, it's for the children.

mike101
January 18, 2008, 04:46 PM
"We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they're back on the streets."

Sounds like Brady BS to me. :scrutiny:

fireflyfather
January 18, 2008, 04:56 PM
I don't think computing power (data storage) would be a problem at all as far as a registry. Today we have PC's (Terabyte hard drives) that could handle the registry part, as far as ballistic data on every gun well that would take something larger for sure but easily done these days.

The registry part is easy, even child's play. Keeping it updated/accurate/out of the wrong hands, now that's a different story. Also, a ballistic fingerprint on half a billion-ish weapons? That's a whole nother order of magnitude in terms of data storage. Technically feasible? Probably. Ask the tech/forensics experts. Cost-effective? Not very likely. How much image data is necesary for a good ballistics fingerprint? And then.............What happens when I change ammo, change barrels, use the barrel for a long time, or when the test target is a different medium than the actual target/backstop? Oh, you mean you want to store ballistics data from several test rounds for each weapon to match cool & hot barrels? Please. Pure fantasy.

KBintheSLC
January 18, 2008, 05:02 PM
However, in response to some who stated that building the database would not be possible with current technology (databases and associated software), that isn't true. You're talking about several hundred million records, with several relational tables. Almost any serious database could handle this job, it would just have to be designed correctly, which isn't hard if you know what you are doing.

You are right. You should see the amount of data that goes through the NYSE through electronic transactions EVERY DAY. There are literally billions of shares traded on any given day, and it runs quite well.

The real issue here is that the federal government needs to keep their nose out of our lives. Extreme dems like Clinton love massive gov control.

rino451
January 18, 2008, 05:29 PM
The DB is just one reasonable inch - technologically reasonably as well as rational. The question is, what is the next reasonable resonable inch? Expanding the medical conditions that "qualify" for inclusion on the exclusion list? Regulating firearm parts like barrels like they did with "hi-cap" mags during the ban? This IMO is just a piece of a larger agenda.

Wombat
January 18, 2008, 05:33 PM
Her comments include a surprisingly clear statement of what Hilary would do if it were not for those "very powerful political winds":

illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country

In other words she realizes that passing laws and making guns illegal has not solved the problem. So what is her solution?

doing enough to try to get guns off the street

She realizes that more laws to make guns double extra-special illegal will not be "enough", so her answer is to "get guns off the street" with no distinction between legal and illegal - make them all disappear. But because of those bad winds that stop her from doing what she knows will solve the problem she will have to settle for enforcing the laws already on the books.

Scary.

We had best keep those winds a-blowin'.

BobbyQuickdraw
January 18, 2008, 05:55 PM
Must. Resist. Urge. To become. Embroiled. In. Political. Argument.

While guns are important, I'm not a 1 issue voter, though if I was, I'd probably choose guns. After all, an armed populace is one that isn't dominated or controlled, but one that exists in freedom.

I dont want people voting Democrat just so theres not a republican in office. Vote for who is best and in line with your beliefs. And as unpopular as it is, I still support George Bush, and if people read facts, and not media bias, they might too.
Bush Economic Growth Rate: 3.5%
Clinton Economic Growth Rate: 3.3%

Federal Revenue Increase over Average: .2%

Bush Deficit as Percentage of GDP: 1.9% (2006 number)
Clinton Deficit as Percentage of GDP: 2.2%

Current Unemployment Rate 4.6% lower now than under Clinton.

But I find myself being drawn into what would surely become an argument.

But I think we can all agree that Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are horrible choices BASED SOLELY on their position on guns. If you like them for other reasons, ok.

Guiliani and Romney are also both pretty poor choices BASED SOLELY on their position on guns.

As my Signature attests, I'm biased towards Huckabee, but he is perfect BASED SOLELY on his record on guns. Thompson is good, Paul is good, and McCain is moderate - he's had the wool pulled over his eyes before.

Gingerbreadman
January 18, 2008, 05:58 PM
I am against illegal guns too. If we made all guns legal, than there would be no more illegal guns. Now that the illegal gun problem is solved, lets move on to the real issues.

Mannix
January 18, 2008, 06:06 PM
Hmmm, I think I'll be getting that normal capacity deer huntin' rifle(Yugo AK) I've been looking at a little sooner than I was planning...

Obama, quite frankly, scares me to death. Hillary is a politician, she won't let her "beliefs" get in the way of that. I don't like Huckabee, but with a Democrat controlled congress he's harmless. McCain, Guiliani, and Romney could be better, but I think they'll tow the line well enough. Well, McCain probably will, the other two may try to score brownie points by crossing party lines. Fred or Paul would be ideal, but I'm not sure if either is a viable candidate.

Hokkmike
January 18, 2008, 06:20 PM
Bad...but much better than Obama's position of wanting a national law prohibiting CCW. Of course, neither will get my vote.

Poper
January 18, 2008, 06:27 PM
[QUOTE][She obviously has no idea of what the actual AWB did, she has no idea of what kinds of crime we and our brethren in the law enforcement community face, and she has no idea of how to fight that crime.][QUOTE]
Don't kid yourself! Hillary knows EXACTLY what the AWB did/didn't and she know EXACTLY what kinds of crime we and LEO's face and probably knows what is necessary to fight it. But that is NOT the purpose of disarming the People or removing their right to arm themselves with EBR's. :fire::fire::fire:
Remember! Hillary is NOT stupid. She is just a plain eqotistical, power hungry, narcissistic Liberal. Give her half an opportunity and she will be the Sadam Hussein of the west. I.E. Of no strong religious conviction and a will to be a ruthless, selfish dictator. Nothing would suit her tastes better! She knows exactly what she said and exactly what she wants.:cuss::fire::cuss:
We sell her short at our own risk!

Fortunately, I for one, do not believe she is electable; her "dislikes" are way too high. If she make VP....
Look out President Obama! :what::eek:

Just my two cents...

Poper

chieftain
January 18, 2008, 06:27 PM
All of you "as long as I have my guns" types are really &^%$#@-ing off the rest of us that would like to see our freedom of speech and protection from illegal search/seizures come back.

Interesting. Which Dimocrat do you think will do that? I do know some Republicans that might. That ain't much difference but it is a difference.


Hell, I'd figure most of you "from my cold dead hands" types would want a Democrat to actually try and get a gun ban passed, that way you could fulfill your fantasies of holding off a bunch of JBTs single-handedly.

They already did. It was the 94 AWB that oppressed us for 10 years, until the Republican controlled Congress and White house did not push to renew it. Some Dimocrats in the congress did. 'W' did say he would sign it if it came to his desk, but did nothing to help it, and most of us 'knew' the republican's in Congress would not pass it. They didn't , he didn't.

So thinking that the Dimocrats will do it again is not much of a stretch. In fact only a kool aide drinker would expect otherwise. All we could hope for, that other issues tied them up long enough that we 'might' nail them and get them out of office before they succeed.

And that's a fact jack.


Some of us would rather work towards getting a President that respects the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION, rather than one that just has an R next to his name.

Do you know or have seen a rational candidate that does that? And please don't put on your tin foil hat, crank up your conspiracy machine, and expound a zero foreign policy credo. It will not work. Kooks don't get a second look. I do like Paul on the constitution, but the rest of his agenda is as if he fell off the edge of the world.

Go figure.

Fred

BobbyQuickdraw
January 18, 2008, 06:47 PM
Some of us would rather work towards getting a President that respects the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION, rather than one that just has an R next to his name.

Considering a lot of scholars view most Federal taxes as illegal under the Constitution, you'll never find a Democrat that fully believes in it, as every single one of them in the running this year wants to hike taxes. Though some (Obama, at least) wants to cut taxes for the middle class. But pay for health care and all this other stuff.

News Flash: You can't CUT taxes and PAY for more stuff. You can't reduce revenue and increase expenditure without creating deficit. But its a nice way to get votes from the middle by telling them you'll cut their taxes.

Also FREE Health Care doesn't exist for anyone who makes money over the poverty line. In fact, your health care costs are going up. Because you're now paying, through new taxes, to send other people to the hospital. Money has to come from somewhere - your paycheck.

sig220mw
January 18, 2008, 07:13 PM
The bunch that seems to be really backing her majesty is the over the hill feminists. It doesn't make sense that they would though, because she got where she is by hanging on to and putting up with her hubbie's shenanagins long enough for her to get where he is and then try and take over. There relationship is a pact with the devil. I wonder just how much she REALLY has on him to keep him in her corner. We"ll probably never know but we can be sure that they and all the other Democrats will indeed try to disarm us if they get to the white house. They don't understand us because we like our guns and we don't understand them because they hate them. Far too many gun owners have a live and let live attitude and don't seem to realize that these people are real and won't give up.

siglite
January 18, 2008, 08:56 PM
Bush recently proved that republican's don't want you armed either.

So... I'll keep this short.

See signature.

cornman
January 18, 2008, 09:21 PM
Where have you anti democrat fanatics been the last 8 years???? The last 8 years of republican control almost completely destroyed the constitution and the rights if the individual, yet the decades of GOP progaganda ie talk radio and cable TV has left you unable to see the walls caving in around you. Wake up and smell the facisim...

22-rimfire
January 18, 2008, 10:13 PM
Cornman, I have no idea what you are referring to with regard to Republicans and the last 8 years; more like 7?

-terry
January 19, 2008, 01:27 AM
Cornman,

+1

Some of these guys just don't get it.:banghead:

novaDAK
January 19, 2008, 04:06 AM
Doesn't the '68 GCA or '86 FOPA prohibit the federal government from having a national gun registry? I know one of those two says something about it.

And I find it rediculous that Hillary thinks that criminals magically didn't have "assault weapons" for the 10 years during the ban, and then when it finally expired, magically got "assault weapons" again.

The ban didn't work. The USDOJ even did a study that supported this fact.To answer my own question, yes, the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) which also included the machine gun ban, also states:
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

chieftain
January 19, 2008, 04:31 AM
Where have you anti democrat fanatics been the last 8 years???? The last 8 years of republican control almost completely destroyed the constitution and the rights if the individual, yet the decades of GOP progaganda ie talk radio and cable TV has left you unable to see the walls caving in around you. Wake up and smell the facisim...

I have been voting Republican. Please be explicit as to where the Constitution and the rights of the individual were destroyed by The GOP. Make sure it is not just follow up of the damage done by the Dimocrats.

Ah, the elitist, ďyou cannot see what I seeď. Following the kool aide script. Oh, yea, one problem many of the Communist/Dimocrat/Socialist/Liberal/Progressiveís have with us is that we are Pro American. Seems to me that bothers a lot of Liberals that we do not blame America first.

As to Fascism, impossible. We are not socialistís, the first requirement to be a fascist. Yea, hate to tell you that the NAZIís were National SOCIALISTS. Much closer to Dimocrat Dogma than any thing the Republicans expound.

Now unlike the Dimocrats, the Republicans ainít perfect. As of late they are acting more and more like Dimocrats, that IS the problem.

What I recommend every Dimocrat to do. Use your policies, without my money. And if the Dimocrats don't take my guns, I don't think the Republicans will.

Go figure.

Fred

camacho
January 19, 2008, 07:54 AM
The complete video is here: http://www.nrapvf.org/

The Wall Street Journal quoted Hillary, but did not mention the rest. Judge for yourself!

precisionshootist
January 19, 2008, 09:14 AM
Bush Economic Growth Rate: 3.5%
Clinton Economic Growth Rate: 3.3%





Clinton Economic Growth Rate: (As a result of Clinton Fiscal policy): 0.0%


There fixed it!!

mgregg85
January 19, 2008, 11:31 AM
All the dem candidates are pretty bad when it comes to gun rights.

Hillary wants NYC style gun control for the nation and the AWB back.
Obama wants a national ban on CCW and a ban on all semiautomatic weapons.
Edwards wants the AWB and thinks the 2A protects hunting rights.
RINO Giuliani wants more gun control but lies about it.
RINO Romney wants an AWB and is clueless about guns and 2A rights.

Now I know the last two aren't with the democratic party but they really might as well be.

ceetee
January 19, 2008, 03:25 PM
As to Fascism, impossible. We are not socialistís, the first requirement to be a fascist. Yea, hate to tell you that the NAZIís were National SOCIALISTS. Much closer to Dimocrat Dogma than any thing the Republicans expound.And a pig, wearing a blanket, is still not a pig-in-a-blanket.

One of the most terrifying aspects of fascism is the fact that the government attampts absolute control over the populace, through the use of private corporations - at the same time as those corporations gain total control over the government. Why do you think our government needs to have privately-owned armies, police forces, correctional institutions, schools...

ilbob
January 19, 2008, 03:42 PM
I sense a thread lock coming.

chieftain
January 19, 2008, 04:24 PM
Well let me offer the key.

One of the most terrifying aspects of fascism is the fact that the government attampts absolute control over the populace, through the use of private corporations - at the same time as those corporations gain total control over the government. Why do you think our government needs to have privately-owned armies, police forces, correctional institutions, schools...

Fascism is terrifying. that is why we must do everything we can to prevent the Socialist Dimocrats from gaining office. Cannot have fascism without socialism.

There is no privately owned armies in America. Myth

Government does not control the country via companies. Myth. The source of this type of thinking is from basic Communist/Democrat/Socialist/Liberal/Progressive, class warfare thinking.

The reason we do have, private police forces working for governments, and correctional institutes and schools, is because the government that the socialists want to increase and run even more of our institutions are and is incompetent.

My complaint is the Socialist's need to control my life, at the same time they admit they can't do or run the institutions they are SUPPOSED TO RUN.

Only a socialist thinks that big corporations run this country. It may seem that way to many folks. But look at what is happening right now.

A bunch of the biggest banks in the country are folding, and being bought up. If they were running things, how could that happen? (waiting rationalizations)

Enron, WorldComm, all went tits up, not because they controlled anything, but because when it was discovered they were crooks, the Republican administration went after them for what they were allowed to do during the Dimocrat administration. yea.

The present problem is that the banks were making bad loans. Let them go. They have destroyed themselves. Will many little guys get hurt. Yup. If you got a sub prime loan you may be in trouble. Mainly because you were not qualified for a 'normal' loan. Vilifying the lender for making the loan is interesting. One could get seriously angry at them for risking their corporation, but not usually a concern of socialists.

I believe many of those sub prime loans will be good, by many will not be. It is called easy credit with all the good and bad that go with it. The companies that did it deserve to go down, those that maintained decent lending standards deserve to thrive.

We can blame all the 'BIG' company's we want, but it is us the little guys who borrowed the money and moved into houses we could not really afford.

My complaint is that minority shareholders of these companies cannot sue the officers and board of the company. By the way it was the Dimocrats that passed the laws that allowed the officers and boards to be protected. Since that time CEO/officer income has soared. But it is private money. Just allow a small shareholder to sue, for valid reasons. (the reason the laws came into effect. For instance. A ecology nut would buy one share than sue the company for it's treatment of the environment. It was bogging all companies into nothingness.)

Anyway, the basic precept of Fascism is socialism. We conservatives are anything but socialists. We want less government, but we do want government doing what it is charged with doing.

No company will keep me from owning or in most cases using a gun, a Dimocrat would.
No Company would increase my taxes, a Dimocrat would.
No Company would tell me what type of vehicle to drive, a Dimocrat would.
No Company would take my right to use my own property as I would, a Dimocrat would.
ETC.......

Pig in a blanket is a pig in a blanket. No pig in any blanket here, except in some peoples desperate need to invent one.

Go figure.

Fred

Kim
January 20, 2008, 12:29 AM
Yea. the fascists sure did believe in Capitalism. Not. They wanted to destroy it. I guess if you got your education from liberal [professors you might think the Corporation worked for the fascists. Well you might too if they would just take your company and nationalize it if you did not. Like holding a gun to your head. The Fascists controlled the Corporations and forced them by threat to march to the government plan. Kinda like severe regulation of the Socialist sort. Kinda like you know which party in the USA. Everything for the COMMON GOOD and the STATE. Russia was International socialism. Fascism was Nationalist Socialism. They two hated each other cause they both wanted POWER. Think of them as two fighting Mafia families sired by the same father with different mothers.

EOTechRulesAll
January 20, 2008, 03:43 AM
Anybody who thinks Mike Huckabee is a real conservative, needs to watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GpjVMEld0g

Robert Hairless
January 20, 2008, 04:48 AM
-terry:

Boy, you one-issue voters are really something. Have you guys forgotten already the mess Bushy has put us in? Another Republican? Sheesh.

Cornman,

+1

Some of these guys just don't get it.

Terry, I keep telling these guys that this isn't a gun forum and that they need to wait for you to tell them what's important but they don't listen to me. They seem to believe that the primary focus of this forum is firearms and they keep trying to think for themselves. Straighten them out.

Who is "Bushy"? Is that what sophisticated people call the President of the United States of America? If so what are the sophisticates' names for other aspects of this country that the unsophisticated amongst us actually respect and which many of us actually served?

I can see why someone like Hillary Clinton might appeal to you. (Or do you call her something like "Pillary Clington" or another sophisticated name?) She was born in 1947 and found her own voice in 2008. That poor woman was speaking in someone else's voice for 60 years. It must be hard to live so long and talk in someone else's voice for all that time. I wonder how she can recognize herself when she speaks.

At any rate you seem to "get it" and the rest of us don't. Enlighten us. Tell us what's important to us, please? It's time we had such a knowledgable person in control of everyone.

chieftain
January 20, 2008, 07:15 AM
Hairless,

Quit pickin on the boy.

He is here to educate us dumb, country red necks.

Yall hear!

I need all the education I can get. I ain't no genius like him and those other folks that know more than all the rest of us hicks put together. You know they know it all.

Go figure.

Fred

Big Boomer
January 20, 2008, 01:42 PM
first, why in the world would you need gun registration for FELONS? They can't buy them anyhow!!!:banghead: Mental checks? That's why we have the NICS...good lord she is dumb!

____________________________________________________ANYONE BUT HILLARY 2008

fearless leader
January 20, 2008, 02:15 PM
Hillary is a National Socialist in my estimation, which leaves little doubt she would follow in the footsteps of other National Socialists. The Germans shortend that "National Socialist Party" to "Nazi".

I wonder if she'll make us do the Hail Cesar salute to her at her acceptance speech like the other national socialist did.

Don't look at me like I'm nuts, Sen. Joe McCarthy tried to warn everybody.

The really scary part is that theres not a nickel's worth of difference between her and Obama. Gulliani wants to pass the AWB and so does Mitt Romney.

When National Socialism threatened to engulf the Globe, the Allied Forces, composed in large numbers by Americans, put a halt to it.

If it rears it's ugly head here and takes over, who then will put an end to it?

Ok, Ok. I'll go put my tin foil hat on now and sit in the basement:)

fearless leader
January 20, 2008, 02:43 PM
Quote: Hillary probably has no idea what the AWB did

I beg to differ.

As a Socialist, which would mean we the people, should rely on the Government for education, food, clothing, shelter, protection.

The people having arms, takes power away from the Government to control that aspect of your life; after all, THEY know what is best for you because they studied it. What do you, the great unwashed know.

Make no mistake, POWER is what it is all about. Ask anyone who was raised or grew up in a socialist/communist culture.

Ask survivors from Nazi Germany. They want to control religion, culture, mating habits, where you live (ever hear of the SS race and resettlement bureau?), your health care, your protection, everything.

Socialists want 2 classes, the Social Elite, and peasants.

I would say that she should really look hard at the second and tenth amendments, but I don't really think she cares.

If you were to run the Bill of Rights through Congress now, it would never pass.

Her claim to fame is apprenticing a corrupt, immoral president.

What more could you want?

jcoiii
January 20, 2008, 04:40 PM
So, Madam Senator, what percentage of police officers that have been killed since the old AWB expired, and killed by firearms, were killed by "assault weapons"?

As I recall, it's something like less than 1% (for the total murder by firearm category) of victims were murdered by a perp with an "assault weapons."

Mojo-jo-jo
January 20, 2008, 04:45 PM
Having a registry of every gun owned in America (and/or the ballistic fingerprint data) is said to be so massive that even modern computers couldn't handle the search parameters. It's millions of entries, with each entry having dozens of variables.

This is no problem. VISA has a database of every VISA credit card, it's owner's information and available balance. Their database is capable of handling all of the simultaneous retail sales transactions on the Saturday before Christmas.

I have no idea the number of VISA cards vs. the number of firearms, but I would conjecture that there are several times more VISA cards than firearms in the U.S.A.

If VISA can do it, than so can the BATFE with your unlimited tax dollars.

Autolycus
January 20, 2008, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Chieftain: How can you tell when a Dimocrat is trying to reduce your use of or completely take you guns from you

Of course, their mouth is moving.

Go figure.

Fred

I dont think it is just "dimocrats" as you mistakenly typed for Democrats. Look at the GOP leaders. Bush is a confirmed anti-gunner. Not to mention the candidates. They are all anti-Bill of Rights except for Ron Paul. Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, and McCain don't inspire confidence as they are pretty much confirmed anti. Huckabee is more tolerable than the rest but he releases rapists and criminals back into the streets because his religion tells him to.

RobTzu
January 20, 2008, 05:24 PM
http://boortz.com/images/i_want_my_mommy_hillary.gif

Tokugawa
January 20, 2008, 05:37 PM
ROBTZU-- that is a great sticker! And that is exactly the problem, too many eating at the public trough. Get enough folk dependent on the Gov. money, and you have a self sustaining vote for more more more. Some would argue that welfare was a massive failure- I would argue it was a total success- it has accomplished exactly what the perpetrators wanted-it created a dependent class who will always vote for them.
And now they want to tax the responsible who were careful and conservative with their money, to pay off the ones who took loans they cannot repay.
And inject more $$ into the money supply and lower interest rates so those with savings are slammed even harder.

NO NANNY STATE!

duck911
January 20, 2008, 07:19 PM
I want a candidate who supports my following beliefs:

1) American Independence and Sovereignty is non-negotiable
2) Border Security is critical
3) The belief that each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms
4) NO socialized health-care
5) The free-market economy should not, and CANNOT be compromised


Oh, wait..... There's ALREADY a candidate this election season who supports all of these points...

Ultrachimp
January 20, 2008, 07:41 PM
Well maybe they should invest the money in getting the FBI out of the 1980's instead and track down real criminals.

TwitchALot
January 20, 2008, 11:28 PM
I do like Paul on the constitution, but the rest of his agenda is as if he fell off the edge of the world.

People say that, but I'd bet those same people have little understanding of US foreign policy, for example, over the last 70 years. His economic policy is a Constitutional one, so I'm not sure what else you'd be talking about.

The_Shootist
January 21, 2008, 12:11 AM
I just think of Canada when talking gun registries. The politicians said it might take a couple of million to implement - bit even before it was remotely close it sucked up 1 billion C$ - and counting.

If Canada couldn't do it - then probably there isn't the money available in the entire world to pay for a similiar system in the US.

Or hell, just Texas at that :evil:

XD-40 Shooter
January 21, 2008, 12:22 AM
Hillary will never publicly advocate gun registration on the campaign trail, to do so would destroy her chances at the white house, look what happened to Kerry and Gore. Hillary will just wait untill a super majority democratic congress sends the bill up to her desk, she will sign it in a New York minute. It doesn't take much to see through Hillary's calculated double talk.

Obama has come out in support of national legislation to ban concealed carry, that's great, lets just override state laws that were passed with large majorities in the state legislatures, the will of the people. That doesn't matter to a socialist, we are the peseants, they are the "enlightened ones".:barf::barf: Hillary and Obama make me want to puke every time I see them.:neener:

I'll get flamed for this, but right now, my candidate is McCain. I think he is best equipped to go up against Hillary. Hillary touts her "experience", compared to McCain, that is laughable at best....lmao!:neener:

Foontgrindle
January 21, 2008, 01:02 AM
fireflyfather said:
The registry part is easy, even child's play. Keeping it updated/accurate/out of the wrong hands, now that's a different story.

The problem is, the government's hands are the wrong hands! Can you say 'fox guarding the henhouse'?

"Any person capable of getting themselves elected president should on on account be allowed to do the job."
-The wise, very funny and late Douglas Adams

ceetee
January 21, 2008, 01:58 PM
Hey, Fred,

We're on the same side in this fight. All the same, you shoul dbe a little more careful in throwing around labels. Here's a great page (http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm) that has pretty identified all the hallmarks of a fascist regime, Nowhere does it identify fascists as being equal (or even believing in) socalism. A few traits of a fascist regime:


3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.


4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.


13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Kind of like what I posted. Corporations control the government (or at least the major movers and shakers) while government protects the corporations in return. As for private armies - When anyone with enough cash can hire out a military force equipped with weapons that are not available to the general populace, I call that a private army. As for our government hiring private armies, haven't you ever heard of Blackwater? Remember the aftermath of Katrina?

The reason our government hires privately-owned schools, and jails, and prisons, and armies, is that those corporate leaders can do the same tasks more efficiently, paying better wages, and still make a profit. If it just appens that those same corporate leaders make decent-sized campaign contributions, who can say if those contracts are payback or honest competition? On, yeah, except that for the most part,those contracts are no-bid contracts written on a cost-plus basis. So I guess they're NOT honest competition...

Question: Does this happen under Republican administrations?
Answer: Where you been for the last seven years?

Question? Does this happen under "Dimocrat" administrations? (BTW - way to keep to the high road there.)
Answer: Where you been for the last fifteen years?

Graft and corruption have been with us for as long as we have been gathering together in tribes. Same goes for dishonesty and untruths. I'm sick of seeing it from both sides. If you were to ask me, I'd paint all the candidates with the same brush, no matter if you're talking about Clinton, Obama, Romney, Huckabee, or whoever. When I hire someone for a job, I insist that they be honest, hard-working, and capable of doing the work. The problem that I see most these days is that we want to hire these guys based soley on the fact that they belong to the "right" club.

Not acceptable to me.

chieftain
January 22, 2008, 05:06 AM
Bush recently proved that republican's don't want you armed either.

Sigh!!!!
How did he PROVE IT? In a manner that most people would accept? Donít bring weak cheese either.


I dont think it is just "dimocrats" as you mistakenly typed for Democrats. Look at the GOP leaders. Bush is a confirmed anti-gunner. Not to mention the candidates. They are all anti-Bill of Rights except for Ron Paul. Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, and McCain don't inspire confidence as they are pretty much confirmed anti. Huckabee is more tolerable than the rest but he releases rapists and criminals back into the streets because his religion tells him to.

First, I didnít misspell anything.

Who confirmed Bush as an Anti-gunner? Hillary is anti gun. Bush just ainít pro Gun. Believe it or not, there is a big difference.

I agree about the folks being very light about the bill of rights, of course Ron Paul is a little light on being rational. I would also give some credit to Fred too. If the folks putting their money and heart into the Paul campaign, had done the same for Fred, he would have a REAL chance of winning. But I understand.


I want a candidate who supports my following beliefs:

1) American Independence and Sovereignty is non-negotiable
2) Border Security is critical
3) The belief that each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms
4) NO socialized health-care
5) The free-market economy should not, and CANNOT be compromised

Oh, wait..... There's ALREADY a candidate this election season who supports all of these pointsÖ

Who? It sure ainít Ron Paul. His foreign policy will not allow him to cover Numbers 1,2 or 5. Canít do any of those without a Foreign policy. And thatís before we start inventing conspiracy theories. Most of the others are no better either. This is a very subjective least worst situation.


People say that, but I'd bet those same people have little understanding of US foreign policy, for example, over the last 70 years. His economic policy is a Constitutional one, so I'm not sure what else you'd be talking about.

Boy is that a non sequitur. Better clear that up a little. And get back to me. Obviously I have ďlittle understandingĒ.


Hey, Fred,

We're on the same side in this fight. All the same, you shoul dbe a little more careful in throwing around labels. Here's a great page that has pretty identified all the hallmarks of a fascist regime, Nowhere does it identify fascists as being equal (or even believing in) socialism. A few traits of a fascist regime:

This guy ainít saying nothing. These are exactly the same for a Communist regime except number one. That is the difference. Fascism is national Socialism, and Communism is World Socialism. And you canít tell most Communists from a fascist except when they are fighting each other.

Thatís it.


Kind of like what I posted. Corporations control the government (or at least the major movers and shakers) while government protects the corporations in return. As for private armies - When anyone with enough cash can hire out a military force equipped with weapons that are not available to the general populace, I call that a private army. As for our government hiring private armies, haven't you ever heard of Blackwater? Remember the aftermath of Katrina?

May be what you posted, but it ainít true. That is true most any totalitarian government too. Both the Communists and Fascists are socialists first. How they drive their version of socialism is why they hate and fight each other so much.

I know in capitalistic systems there is a symbiotic relationship between government and corporations. When the Corporations are profitable, the people have work, and the economy is improved. That is exactly how it is supposed to work. Not like some Communists/Dimocrats/Socialists/Liberals/Progressives would have you think.

In a Fascist country, if the corporate heads donít play ball, they get handed their heads, literally. In a Communist country, the reason for the systemic incompetence is that the government is running everything. In those Communist countries that allow some autonomous companies, if the head of the company doesnít play ball, they hand him his head, literally. True in most Totalitarian countries.

Not true in ours. Many Corporate officers openly and actively work against the administration. They get to vote on election day too, just like you and me.

By the way, why donít you like corporations. I donít particularly like their size, but they are just folks like me, trying to make a living.

Now the second part of your statement.

Under the governments approval special security groups used only OUT SIDE OF THE COUNTRY. Were/are authorized. Okay, you call it a private army. Just call it one outside of the country. Yup, I am very familiar with Blackwater, I am still waiting for the point?

Yup, remember Katrina. Those Blackwater boys, excuse me, rent a cops, were not as well armed as I was after several of the hurricanes that hit our family home in Florida during 2004, (got hit 3 times) or Andrew in 1992 . Again, your Point?


The reason our government hires privately-owned schools, and jails, and prisons, and armies, is that those corporate leaders can do the same tasks more efficiently, paying better wages, and still make a profit. If it just appens that those same corporate leaders make decent-sized campaign contributions, who can say if those contracts are payback or honest competition? On, yeah, except that for the most part,those contracts are no-bid contracts written on a cost-plus basis. So I guess they're NOT honest competition..

In your world who is allowed to make decent sized campaign contributions? Only certain people, no one? Can you say if they are honest or not? I do know corruption takes place. But it is truly the exception, not the rule. If you feel a need to commit class warfare, go ahead and join Hillary, McCain, Obama, and Edwards, they along with Bill will feel your pain.

Nope, most of those contracts are bid. Not many no bid contracts at all. Usually when there is a time element is the no bid used.


Question: Does this happen under Republican administrations?
Answer: Where you been for the last seven years?

Does what happen under a Republican administration. If you had to get folks to New Orleans within days. Would you have sent out a request for bids instead?


Question? Does this happen under "Dimocrat" administrations? (BTW - way to keep to the high road there.)
Answer: Where you been for the last fifteen years?

I know where I've been, speak for yourself.


Graft and corruption have been with us for as long as we have been gathering together in tribes. Same goes for dishonesty and untruths. I'm sick of seeing it from both sides. If you were to ask me, I'd paint all the candidates with the same brush, no matter if you're talking about Clinton, Obama, Romney, Huckabee, or whoever. When I hire someone for a job, I insist that they be honest, hard-working, and capable of doing the work. The problem that I see most these days is that we want to hire these guys based soley on the fact that they belong to the "right" club.

Maybe you vote by club, I donít. I vote on the only group that has, and maybe in the future work for things I am interested in. The only group that has worked for my interest is generally Republicans. Unlike you, they are like me, less than perfect.


Not acceptable to me.

When are you going to go in to politics and make it acceptable to you? If not, you had better find someone that ainít perfect that you can live with. I have.

America, we have choices, ainít it grand!!!!!

We have a political revolution in this country every 2 years. Join it and Vote. Don't like the candidates running, get out there and either become one, or get one to run.

Go figure.

Fred

ceetee
January 24, 2008, 10:29 AM
Okay, so by not addressing the majority of points I made in my post, and by addressing the rest with opinion, and obfuscation, you're trying to prove exactly what? And by gifting me with attitudes that I don't have (who says I don't like corporations?) you're actually lying about what I said. Thanks.

In a Fascist country, if the corporate heads donít play ball, they get handed their heads, literally. Not true. The source I provided says that the corporate heads are actually running the show, not being beheaded. You're not speaking truthfully. Go figure.


Under the governments approval special security groups used only OUT SIDE OF THE COUNTRY. Were/are authorized. Okay, you call it a private army. Just call it one outside of the country. Yup, I am very familiar with Blackwater, I am still waiting for the point?

Yup, remember Katrina. Those Blackwater boys, excuse me, rent a cops, were not as well armed as I was after several of the hurricanes that hit our family home in Florida during 2004, (got hit 3 times) or Andrew in 1992 . Again, your Point?My point was that our government hires private armies, which you agree with. Another point I made is that those private armies have been hired for duty inside our own borders. They also have access to weapons which the general populace does not. This makes me aware that our government will hire mercenaries, who have sworn no oath to our Constitution, to combat anyone they deem as an enemy. These mercenaries have no loyalty to the people, have no duty to act in accordance with the Constitution, and take orders from whoever is paying them. You're okay with this?

Nope, most of those contracts are bid. Not many no bid contracts at all. Usually when there is a time element is the no bid used. I suggest you do some research. One film you might want to watch in particular is "Iraq For Sale." In it, you'll see statements and testimony from ordinary folks, "like you and me", that got so sick of the government's corruption in bidding and spending that they were willing to go public and let the chips fall where they may.

In your world who is allowed to make decent sized campaign contributions? Only certain people, no one? Can you say if they are honest or not? I do know corruption takes place. But it is truly the exception, not the rule. If you feel a need to commit class warfare, go ahead and join Hillary, McCain, Obama, and Edwards, they along with Bill will feel your pain.

One issue is that those with large amounts of money are allowed to start and/or fund Political Action Committees (PAC's). While I might be able to send my favorite candidate a few dollars, a person or corporation that can afford it can fund a PAC with enough money to choke a whole stable of horses. Not only that, but there are always ways for scammers to get around the campaign contribution laws. Do I have the same kind of voice in government as the land developer that just bought a candidates house for 2 million dollars more than it's worth? I don't have a way to fix campaign finance issues - I'm not smart enough. That's why we have elections - so we can hire those folks that ARE smart enough to fix these issues. Unfortunately, there hasn't been a politician born that will vote to cut off his own money supply.

Maybe you vote by club, I donít. I vote on the only group that has, and maybe in the future work for things I am interested in. The only group that has worked for my interest is generally Republicans. Unlike you, they are like me, less than perfect.You just showed that you do, indeed, vote by club. You vote fo ranyone with an "R" after his name, no matter what his character or record. I never claimed to be perfect, either. Nice underhanded way of belittling my point, and my intelligence. This is The High Road, isnt it?

We have a political revolution in this country every 2 years. Join it and Vote. Don't like the candidates running, get out there and either become one, or get one to run. Really? When was the last time we really had someone running that was for change? Or for "revolution"? The only candidate I can recall that didn't absolutely toe the party line (even though he came pretty durn close to it) was Bill Clinton... I've already said that I'm nowhere near smart enough to run things (although I could probably do a much better job than George W. Bush has). Problem that I see is, no one that's running is smart enough either.

chieftain
January 24, 2008, 11:39 AM
Not true. The source I provided says that the corporate heads are actually running the show, not being beheaded. You're not speaking truthfully. Go figure.

Better vet you source a lot better. Instead of quoting him, you should be questioning him.

You obviously didn’t listen to folks that lived under fascism, vs. those who are desperately trying to justify the Soviet model of fascism. It just ain’t so. If it is that obvious to you, please state some examples where what a corporate head said was law. Not that from time to time what a corporate head wanted to become law didn’t. Sure that happened. It is supposed to happen, in a free state. Not a fascist state.

Just remember, the first requirement of any fascist state is for it to be a Socialist state too. Don't ever forget that. That is an absolute.


My point was that our government hires private armies, which you agree with. Another point I made is that those private armies have been hired for duty inside our own borders. They also have access to weapons which the general populace does not. This makes me aware that our government will hire mercenaries, who have sworn no oath to our Constitution, to combat anyone they deem as an enemy. These mercenaries have no loyalty to the people, have no duty to act in accordance with the Constitution, and take orders from whoever is paying them. You're okay with this?

Our government has hired private armies since the late 1700’s under Jefferson IIRC. Do you think Presley O’Banion and his 7 Marines took those Barbary pirates by themselves? NO, they bought the cooperation of local troops/leaders. Sheesh.

What do you consider our troops serving under the UN banner are? They are no longer Under US command and control!

I don’t mind using mercs outside the country at all. Yup, I am alright with that. Why aren’t you?

Can you point out where those private armies have been hired? Now there are a lot of security guys, I call them rent a cops are hired by government. Nothing wrong with that. They usually carry worse or less cutting edge weapons than I do.

What private Army IN SIDE the United States is carrying better weapons than I am? Please don’t come with Blackwater. They don’t carry anything I cannot, inside the country.


I suggest you do some research. One film you might want to watch in particular is "Iraq For Sale." In it, you'll see statements and testimony from ordinary folks, "like you and me", that got so sick of the government's corruption in bidding and spending that they were willing to go public and let the chips fall where they may.

After watching one conspiracy film about 35 years ago, I stopped watching such trash. I know folks like you and me working in Iraq, and returned from Iraq that I don’t need to have a propagandist do it for me.

I will guarantee that corruption is taking place. Has been since the first government paid for war in history. That is why many American are already under indictment for corruption. It will happen and we need to keep going after them.

Two things happen. Some times it is corruption, sometimes it is the result of wasteful government habits. Hasn’t made a difference who or what party was running things either. It is the nature of any bureaucracy. Never ending story.


One issue is that those with large amounts of money are allowed to start and/or fund Political Action Committees (PAC's). While I might be able to send my favorite candidate a few dollars, a person or corporation that can afford it can fund a PAC with enough money to choke a whole stable of horses. Not only that, but there are always ways for scammers to get around the campaign contribution laws. Do I have the same kind of voice in government as the land developer that just bought a candidates house for 2 million dollars more than it's worth? I don't have a way to fix campaign finance issues - I'm not smart enough. That's why we have elections - so we can hire those folks that ARE smart enough to fix these issues. Unfortunately, there hasn't been a politician born that will vote to cut off his own money supply.

Interestingly enough, PAC’s came around because people like you didn’t like corporations, and such from directly contributing to politicians. So you don’t like that fix. What fix do you want?

So you believe only certain folks should contribute. They aren’t allowed to contribute as much as you can? Why. Why should they be limited to your limitations? Because you want it. If that is true get enough folks like you to vote for it. It really is that simple. You will have to work very hard to succeed. Your choice.

Many PAC’s are funded by people just like you banding together. Think about the NRA and it’s contributions just for one example, as we are on THE HIGH ROAD.


You just showed that you do, indeed, vote by club. You vote fo ranyone with an "R" after his name, no matter what his character or record. I never claimed to be perfect, either. Nice underhanded way of belittling my point, and my intelligence. This is The High Road, isnt it?

I cannot belittle your point or intelligence. Only you can do that. I am belittling those of the opposition that control the mass media, academia, and many of our elected positions.

The ‘club’ you attempt to belittle me of voting for is the only hope of my keeping my firearms, to use an example that applies to this thread and THE HIGH ROAD, doesn’t it.

No Dimocrats will appoint any Supreme Court Justices that will vote with my interest. The Justices the Dims will appoint will vote against my civil right to keep and bear Arms in any reasonable manner. The Republicans may too, but some of those Republicans WILL vote in a manner that is in my interest.

Now understand. All Republicans ain’t perfect on this stuff either. Just much better than the Dimocrat alternative:

Dimocrats want more of my tax money, then the Republicans do.
Dimocrats want to give my money to folks I don’t want to get it. Some republicans want to do that too. I work against them in the primaries as I can.
Dimocrats want to restrict more of my personal activity, than the Republicans do.
Dimocrats want to dictate the vehicles I drive, the light bulbs I use, and how I sort my garbage.
Dimocrats want to make successful corporations unsuccessful.
Dimocrats want to make my government as socialistic as it can.
Dimocrats want people that want my children dead, to be rewarded for that belief.

You may continue the list if you wish. There are many more examples like this.

Some Republicans want that too. Most do not. I made my choice, apparently you have too.

I don’t want any of that for my country or my children. Apparently you do.


You just showed that you do, indeed, vote by club. You vote fo ranyone with an "R" after his name, no matter what his character or record. I never claimed to be perfect, either. Nice underhanded way of belittling my point, and my intelligence. This is The High Road, isnt it?

Now you are repeating yourself.

I have voted for Dimocrats on extremely rare cases. Not on any national level though.

And apparently for your edification, YES THIS IS THE HIGH ROAD.


Really? When was the last time we really had someone running that was for change? Or for "revolution"? The only candidate I can recall that didn't absolutely toe the party line (even though he came pretty durn close to it) was Bill Clinton... I've already said that I'm nowhere near smart enough to run things (although I could probably do a much better job than George W. Bush has). Problem that I see is, no one that's running is smart enough either.

I don’t want change for changes sake. I only want change that will improve things. Not for any class or group, but for the country as a whole. The GENERAL WELFARE.

You have said you are not smart enough several times now. I believe you.

If you think Clinton was an answer. I am desperately trying to figure out the question.

Bush was smart enough to beat a lot of people who thought they were smarter than him. He had better college grades than everyone that ran against him. Inspite of that, many folks think they are smarter even as they continue to be defeated by this supposedly inferior intellect. Maybe, if his opponents were as smart as they think they are, they may come to the conclusion that their assumption is wrong. But that could only happen if THEY were smart enough, wouldn’t it?

Most of the real screw ups by Bush were when he acted most like a Dimocrat. Excessive spending, Illegal Aliens, And even on gun issues, where he did nothing to hurt shooters, but said he would. Even though he was pretty sure the congress would not send him the renewal of the AWB ban. May have been an election ruse. I don’t know, and am glad he didn’t have to be tested. But I do know he didn’t work to have it reinstated either. Not like a bunch of Dimcrats.

But I presume you would have preferred sKerry on the issue. Or maybe ALGORE.

Go figure.

Fred

ceetee
January 24, 2008, 01:54 PM
Wow... how long did it take you to type out all those untruths, and half-truths?

Here are some things that you attribute to me, that I never said:


state some examples where what a corporate head said was law

people like you didnít like corporations, and such from directly contributing to politicians. So you donít like that fix

So you believe only certain folks should contribute.

They arenít allowed to contribute as much as you can? Why. Why should they be limited to your limitations? Because you want it.

I made my choice, apparently you have too.

I donít want any of that for my country or my children. Apparently you do.

Now you are repeating yourself.

If you think Clinton was an answer

But I presume you would have preferred sKerry on the issue. Or maybe ALGORE.



You argue like my wife: Make up a whole bunch of crap I never said, then get all ticked off about it.

You vet my source. If you're so sure he's wrong, prove it.

The first requirement for a fascist stte is NOT to be a socialist state. In fact, the fascists were actually fighting against the socialists not too long ago... remember WWII?

I donít mind using mercs outside the country at all. Yup, I am alright with that. Why arenít you? My question was are you okay with using mercs INSIDE OUR COUNTRY that have no loyalty to our country or it's constitution, who have access to better arms and ordinance that the ordinary population does, and who take orders from whoever is paying them? Or are you doubting that those "rent a cops" have access to better weapons than the average citizen? Don't answer the question if you don't want - but don't pretend you have answered it when you haven't.

So because you saw something 35 years ago that may or may not have been "propagandist", you've closed your mind off to everything you don't see personally? Harumph. What kind of person lives entirely within the bounds of their own personal universe?

As for corruption and campaign finance, what fix are you offering? Tell me your plan, and I'll tell you if it stinks or not. My position is that we hire people to be honest, and then reward them for being lying scum. Apparently, you think this is okay. Of course, you also think that it's okay to call people derogatory names by altering their proper titles, like this is an elementary school playground. What's next? Can your Daddy whup my Daddy? Grow up, Fred.


Dimocrats want more of my tax money, then the Republicans do.

Why has our budget gone from balanced (under a Democrat) to being extremely out of balance (under the Republicans)?
Dimocrats want to give my money to folks I donít want to get it. Some republicans want to do that too. I work against them in the primaries as I can.

All politicians want to give our tax money to folks we don't want to get it. All except the Libertarians, maybe. Gonna vote Lib next time round?
Dimocrats want to restrict more of my personal activity, than the Republicans do.
Republicans came up with TSA and "Homeland Security". How restrictive are those?

Dimocrats want to dictate the vehicles I drive, the light bulbs I use, and how I sort my garbage.

I really want to see proof of that! (Hold my beer while I laugh).

Dimocrats want to make successful corporations unsuccessful.

I want to see proof of that, too!

Dimocrats want to make my government as socialistic as it can.

That's debatable. Democrats are certainly not winning my heart with their policies.

Dimocrats want people that want my children dead, to be rewarded for that belief.

Which Democrats want to kill your children? And when are you going to press charges?

I think you're talking about this phony "War on Terror" the Republicans started, to which I only have one thing to say: "Where's Osama?"

This "War on Terror" should just as well be called the "War on the American Treasury", because the only goal of it seems to be spending our tax dollars as fast as humanly possible.

Justin
January 24, 2008, 02:03 PM
This one's gone completely political.

If you enjoyed reading about "A Gun -control exchange from Tuesday nightís Democratic presidential debate:" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!