Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
When it comes to the Second Amendment and guns, it seems that President Obama can’t make anyone happy. Ever since Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency, the NRA has screamed that Obama will be taking away the guns. This scare tactic continued when Obama defeated John McCain for the Presidency. Just what has Barack Obama done to make the NRA and gun owners frightened for their guns? The simple answer to this question is nothing. The head of the National Rifle Association, Mr. Wayne LaPierre actually admitted recently that Obama has done nothing to attack gun owner’s rights to bear arms, but claims Obama’s inaction against guns is actually a conspiracy to take away guns!! ‘ “[The Obama campaign] will say gun owners — they’ll say they left them alone,” LaPierre told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Friday. “In public, he’ll remind us that he’s put off calls from his party to renew the Clinton [assault weapons] ban, he hasn’t pushed for new gun control laws… The president will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he’s actually been good for the Second Amendment.” “But it’s a big fat stinking lie!” the NRA leader exclaimed. “It’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the Second Amendment in our country.” ‘ Raw Story
Now, before anyone thinks I am making this stuff up, the linked site includes a video clip wherein Mr. LaPierre verbalizes this alleged reverse conspiracy. Mr. LaPierre makes a point of throwing in the necessary names of alleged liberal co-conspirators to rev up his base. ‘ “Sotomayor, Kagan, Fast & Furious, the United Nations, executive orders. Those are the facts we face today… President Obama and his cohorts, yeah, they’re going to deny their conspiracy to fool gun owners. Some in the liberal media, they are already probably blogging about it. But we don’t care because the lying, conniving Obama crowd can kiss our Constitution!” ‘
The lying, conniving Obama crowd as Mr. LaPierre labels them has not done anything to harm the Second Amendment rights that the NRA claims to be at risk. I was interested in the last few words of LaPierre’s quotation above. The phrase “kiss our Constitution” appears to lay claim that the NRA and its followers own the Constitution and its protections. I could have sworn that my law school Constitutional professors taught me that the Constitution protects all citizens, but maybe I heard them wrong. But, I digress.
As the Raw Story article suggests, President Obama has actually taken heat from his own supporters over his alleged conspiracy to not take away the guns. NPR Does Mr. LaPierre provide any evidence of this bizarre claim? None that I could find. Maybe you will have better luck than me in finding evidence of presidential actions to hide President Obama’s intentions and/or actions of stealing legal guns from their owners.
I have to admit that if you read the comments section of the NPR article that details how the Left is disappointed with Obama’s inaction on gun control, you will read almost nothing except gun owners claiming that Obama’s words of inaction are actually code words that the End is Near and the Sky is Falling for gun owners! Just what will it take gun owners to ask Mr. LaPierre for evidence of his wild claims? I, for one would love to hear his answer to that question. I understand that candidate and President Obama may have stayed away from the 2nd Amendment issues for political reasons, but where is the evidence of this alleged conspiracy? I would think Fox News would be sending Bill O’Reilly’s reporters all over the country to uncover such a heinous conspiracy.
If Mr. Obama has not written any executive orders or supported additional legislative steps to control or take away guns since he has become President, just what is the basis for these wild claims? I realize that the NRA has a financial interest in getting gun owners scared into buying more guns, but are there other, underlying reasons why the gun owners are frightened so easily, when the facts do not support the NRA’s claims?
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)- Guest Blogger
Additional sources: Gun Owners of America; NRA-ILA; Pajamas Media;
Gene H:
How big is the Code of Federal Regulations? It is huge. I am probably violating some law sitting in my chair.
More of the same is not going to change the system. Lawyers do not know enough about what they are doing to pass laws. Most of them know the law but do not know any other subject. Most politicians are lawyers, most scientists, economists and engineers are not.
No one individual has all of the knowledge needed to design a successful regulation. There are too many permutations to take into account. Look what Dick Durbin did by restricting swipe fees. Now they are talking about passing a regulation to limit debit card charges. All that will do is cause banks to raise some other fee to compensate for their costs.
I see regulations failing all around me, why would I think they will work if someone else tries? For gods sake there is a regulation concerning the color of margarine, no doubt paid for by the butter industry so that margarine would have to add coloration to make it more expensive for the margarine producers.
This isnt about millionaires and their Gulf Streams and Yachts, it is about providing jobs for plumbers and painters and oil field workers and machinists and carpenters and waiters and bar tenders. It is about providing jobs for the middle class and the poor.
The bail out of Wall St. hurt main street, the EPA is shutting people out, government is out of control and you want more? I sincerely disagree.
All the “elites” have done is screw things up, I have elite fatigue.
Bron,
And where did Gene say that he wants to prevent people from buying Yugos or investing in GM? I can see why you’re asking after hay – you’ve obviously used up your entire supply of straw…
Gene H:
I said above:
“I agree some people make terrible decisions but that doesnt give you the right to impose your will on everyone else to correct their bad decisions.”
I am talking about legal decisions, such as buying a Yugo or investing in GM prior to the bailout. Not stealing from someone.
Do you buy your hay by the truck load?
GENE H: “If you don’t think money and/or egotism are the best things in the world, you must be a Marxist/Fascist/Some Other Word He Doesn’t Know The Meaning Of.”
BRON: “Good straw man there Gene.”
That would be a strawman if it were unprovoked. Within this very thread you said, “did I mention your taste in heros really sucks? Marx, Lenin, Mao, Che, Fidel, Pol Pot.”
Apparently, you think there are only Republicans and Socialists. Anybody who doesn’t want unfettered corporations free to ignore public desires, must want an over-regulated economy, a bloated government, and a mob that can loot the mansions of the wealthy.
I don’t want big government for the sake of big government. I don’t want government that measures the size of the janitor closet at the women’s clinic. I don’t want a Bureau of Filing Everything in Triplicate. I don’t want a government that looks into my bedroom or tells me I’m too fat.
I think most people (who don’t own multi-national corporations) want government to be just as big as necessary. The billionaires who contribute to Karl Rove’s Super-PAC would tell you any regulation is too much regulation. Without enough regulation, factories could pollute our rivers, pipelines could leak onto the ground, medicine could be prescribed without testing, meat could be packaged rotten side down, cigarettes and liquor could be sold to kids, all of America’s banks could merge and become THE Bank of America, employers could make people work 12 hour days without overtime, and people could drive 100 miles per hour while crossing the intersection the second they get there, etc.
A proponent of free markets would say that people who find rat shit in their coffee will buy their coffee somewhere else. What happens when all coffee distributors realize they can leave rat shit in their beans?
If you think we’re over-regulated, throw out some regulations that hurt you or us or the country. Let’s debate them.
“But what you dont understand is that other people have a right to their own beliefs and you would silence those with whom you disagree.”
I don’t agree. Silencing people would mean banning them. I think if you offer your view, and somebody else disagrees with you and says so, you’ve both had a turn. Nobody silenced you, they just disagreed with you.
I do deplore the “you’re an idiot” remarks, regardless of who says it.
Bron,
When taxes are calculated at a percentage, whether 9% or 90%, it does not matter how much a rich guy makes. The percentage of $4,000 or $4,000,000 is still a percentage.
As far as “loopholes” go, of course there were, and still are “loopholes.” They are called deductions. Some are engineered to create jobs. For example, when the “loophole” on expensive cars and executive jets was closed by Reagan, it shut down segments of the auto and general aviation industry. Beechcraft had to close a whole assembly line, laying off somewhere around 15,000 highly skilled workers. I read that some shipbuilding companies had to lay off a lot of people because the market for luxury boats dried up. When manipulating the so-called loopholes, both Congress and the Administration seem to forget the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Bron,
“I agree some people make terrible decisions but that doesnt give you the right to impose your will on everyone else to correct their bad decisions.”
Then it is simply the rule of law that you object to. Laws (restrictions and corrections on bad behavior and mistakes a.k.a. criminal law and torts) are part of the price of the social contract (which you’ve already demonstrated that you don’t understand).
“You and Gene are foolishly consistent as far as I can tell. You are just like me, you believe in your own mind and think you are right. But what you dont understand is that other people have a right to their own beliefs and you would silence those with whom you disagree. I enjoy seeing your side of it and find it interesting even when I disagree.”
Actually the primary consistency of both mine and Slarti’s statement is a reliance upon logic and verifiable proof. You are entitled to your beliefs, however, silencing you is not on the agenda no matter how often you claim it is (and I’m still waiting for evidence that you were coerced or intimidated into silence – which won’t be forthcoming because it simply never happened). However, you are not entitled to espouse your beliefs and have them go unchallenged. I know it’s hard to understand through the prism of “you”, but free speech applies to us all – including the right to challenge and ridicule ridiculous beliefs and distorted information and abuse of terminology. If you don’t like that you bear the brunt of the lumps dished out because your beliefs and arguments are often ridiculous, again, that’s your problem for adopting faulty beliefs and putting forth ridiculous arguments. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, “If your positions are constantly slammed and destroyed, maybe the problem is you. You should take a long look in the mirror and come away with some other thought than ‘There’s something wrong with this mirror.'” Your foolish consistency lies not in the willingness to hear other arguments but in the continued refusal to examine your beliefs in the light of enormous countervailing evidence that both your beliefs and your facts are both likely wrong and fundamentally destructive to society. Your arguments don’t get smashed because we don’t like you. I know for a fact Slarti likes you while I am merely indifferent. Your arguments get smashed because they lack logical substance and quantifiable verifiable proof, i.e. they are crap.
“I rarely resort to ad hominem attacks unless attacked.”
Are you sure you want to go there? Because ridiculing your lack of range in tactics, unrealistic beliefs and ignorance at the meanings of terminology isn’t the same thing as ridiculing you as a man. That you take being made to look foolish personally? That’s another matter and entirely your problem. Much like most of the terminology you use, you don’t understand what an ad hominem attack is.
“‘If you don’t think money and/or egotism are the best things in the world, you must be a Marxist/Fascist/Some Other Word He Doesn’t Know The Meaning Of.’
Good straw man there Gene.”
Again, you demonstrate your ignorance of what a straw man argument is, Mr. Makes Up Meanings To Words. It would be a misrepresentation of your alleged tactics if you didn’t on a regular basis make up the meanings of words to suit your arguments, Roco. Stop using your own definitions and learn about that of which you speak if you think that’s unfair.
“I am saying Slarti and Gene H are supporting the current status quo through their economic beliefs.”
Being for proper regulation that benefits society as opposed to coddling of special interests and the K Street graft machine is hardly supporting the status quo. For example, the issue with banks isn’t regulation, it’s improper regulation – starting with the repeal of Glass-Steagall and ending with the steady erosion of oversight and enforcement purchased by the banking lobby.
“But I believe the majority of people are good and decent and would act ethically/morally in a free economic environment. Those that dont and harm others can either be jailed or taken to civil court.”
And that is a delusional belief. Without rules, bad behavior is encouraged by their very lack and the resulting lack of consequence for bad actions. This applies to the markets as well. You cannot jail or sue someone unless you have a law prohibiting their bad actions in the first place. You say you are for objective regulation? Then you cannot be for laissez-faire capitalism without being a hypocrite. Objective regulations consider societal outcomes. It requires a utilitarian analysis of the societal benefits of taking an action (such as regulating or criminalizing) to contrast with the societal cost incurred by limiting behavior. An objective and utilitarian analysis reveals that greed must also be curbed by force of law because greed is at the heart of the three social ills bringing this country to its knees:
1) political exceptionalism driven by special interests and their political money influencing the electoral and political processes,
2) corporate misbehavior in the unrestrained (through buying exemption and limiting oversight of their businesses) pursuit of profit above all other considerations and
3) the aforementioned problems creating an economic environment that stifles competition against large corporations from below by creating barriers to entrance into business and creating an unlevel playing field (both purchased with corporate funded lobbyist cash).
The difference if your approach and mine to solving the problem is analogous to forestry practices. Uncontrolled and improper growth is killing the forest. My position is one of responsible husbandry in doing selective cuttings to eliminate problem species while encouraging the development and spread of beneficial species. Your position is to burn down the forest and trust that the beneficial will survive even in light of the tyranny of the strong (beneficial strong species or not).
Mine is a course built on rational decision making and analysis.
Yours is a course built on wishful thinking and irrational beliefs that the free market – an irrational mechanism – will sort out the good actors from the bad actors.
You have the right to hold those beliefs and engage in wishful thinking, Bron.
You do not have the right to express those thoughts without challenge.
If you think that’s the equivalent of silencing you, you are again engaging in a false equivalence. No one here has ever said you cannot express yourself, they’ve said your ideas suck. If you think that is the equivalent of an ad hominem attack, you are again displaying a lack of understanding about what constitutes an ad hominem attack (and indeed when that form can be properly used). If you think this is a personal affront, then I suggest you are again looking at the problems facing society through the prism of “you” when the problems of society – by necessity – must be looked at through the prism of “me and we”. Your fundamental errors are rooted in your dogmatic adherence to Objectivism and the inherent egotism Rand’s irrational beliefs foster. Society and the laws that shepard it are not about what you want but ideally are about what best provides for the benefit of all society. Serial killers want to kill, thieves – both white collar and blue collar – want to steal, but neither want to personally be held accountable for their actions. The laws against killing are for the common good and against the individual liberty of the serial killer. The same goes with the laws against blue collar theft. Where the system is breaking down is political money buying exemption though various means for white collar thieves and allowing them to rig the system so not only are they not held accountable for their bad actions, they are rewarded for their bad actions.
Regulation, like size, isn’t the problem. The problem is dysfunction. Dysfunction isn’t a reflection of size or of regulation, but rather a reflection of mismanagement brought about by corruption – corruption that requires that requires two parties to complete the crime as graft requires someone willing to pay it and someone willing to neglect or improperly execute their duties of office for said pay; including making a dysfunctional regulatory system that malfunctions just as described above that fosters the now criminal but unpunished status quo.
My position leads out of the status quo.
Your position (and those of the Libertarian economic bent and the followers of Kochs) encourages it.
You will never get rid of bad actors by removing the law from the equation.
You can only improve its efficiency by making sure the law is both objective and utilitarian in formulation and absolute and equal in enforcement.
If this cuts into profits?
Too bad.
The welfare of all of society is far more important than some corporate asshat getting to buy a new yacht to show off in Monte Carlo this season.
taxes in the 1950’s were full of loopholes. and only a few people were making over 400,000 dollars a year. the average salary was around 4 or 5 thousand a year.
Laffer theories work pretty well. Reagan presided over the largest tax increase in the history of the US.
I would like to see the super rich pay as much as 15%. I can remember the days back in the 1950s when the top tax bracket was 90%. We did not have high unemployment and there was prosperity with a robust middle class.
The trickle down theories of Laffer and the so-called objectivism of Rand are about as viable as the nutty theories of Marx. And for exactly the same reason. They do not take into consideration human nature.
Bron Should we do away with the FDA?
Jo:
and how many of the regulations in your make believe analogy exist and were created by government? Banks are heavily regulated and it works out about as well as Durbins insisting that banks not charge merchants a high swipe fee.
Jo:
By the way I also think taxes are OK but they need to be reduced to take the burden off of the middle class and poor. Federal taxes are not all of the problem because of deductions but when you add SS, property, state, sales and other taxes and the cost of compliance it adds up and takes money out of the economy.
I would say if everyone paid no more than 15% of their income in taxes of all kinds that would be reasonable.
AY, LMAO at Trump. I’ll explain how I see Trump by analogy. Trump and three others, Lets say You, Bron, and I sit down to play Monopoly. Trump of course is the banker ( he throws a tantrum if he doesn’t get to be Banker AND he wants the SHOE) So he starts handing out the money. He gets All the money and we are set up with Direct Deposit Accounts with the usual beginning $$$. Oh and did I say that our accounts are not interest accounts but that we have to pay fees of $100 every time we pass go. And so we only collect in our accounts $100 for passing go. Other fees and penalties are levied during the game however if Trump is to be penalized he can get a loan from the bank and if his penalties are $500 or more he can claim bankruptcy. We can not borrow from the bank because we do not have cash but a direct deposit account. There is a cash fee for declaring bankruptcy and so we cant do that. Also in declaring bankruptcy he does not lose any cash or properties. When we land on a property we can buy it and there is a fee for doing so because we are using the banks services to pay the monies for the purchase. Because Trump doesnt need to use the bank to purchase he doesn’t pay fees. Also if you land on a property you can buy all properties of the same color if you can afford it and place hotels on properties right away. Now guess who wins the game. And because he wins the game he thinks its due to his business acumen. Trump is also an ass because he thinks his Comb-over means he is not bald.
Jo:
it is perfectly acceptable in my opinion to have objective rules.
Setting objective, scientifically proven standards for pollution are fine. If it is shown that 100 ppm of arsenic causes harm to human life then you figure out what the safe level is, if there is no scientifically proven safe level then ban it.
We have zoning laws which prohibit putting a high rise in a single family neighborhood. Fine with me.
What I object to is unilateral prohibitions against doing this or that based on political expediency/ideology.
The FDA has not exactly served us well, on the one hand it restricts drugs from coming to market and on the other it doesnt catch bad drugs that cause harm. It is a joke.
I think big corporations are way to cozy with the government and I am against that as well. I am opposed to farm subsidies and I was opposed to the wall st. bail out-privatized profit and socialized loss is not the way to go.
I am saying Slarti and Gene H are supporting the current status quo through their economic beliefs.
I also have no illusions about human beings or big corporations, that is why we have laws and a court system. Some people are bad actors and need to be restrained.
But I believe the majority of people are good and decent and would act ethically/morally in a free economic environment. Those that dont and harm others can either be jailed or taken to civil court.
I am beginning to wonder if people who think people are unethical and immoral may be that way themselves.
Well Jo,
It is I believe….a fairly tale world…Honest Businesses will survive….bad ones will go under…The Koch’s will do right….and if they didn’t get charged with theft of oil from the government….they must not have done anything illegal…Tariffs stifle competition…and people are only unemployed because they want to be…and The Donald would be rich today….even if he had not been born to wealth….My thoughts…he’d be behind bars for mortgage fraud or a something else…I do not think that he is smart enough to have run a Ponzi scheme this long…but I am skeptical…
AY, Yeah I just want a Yea or nay on that so I will understand Bron’s position. I have been reading this post “Second Amendment Boogey Man” since the start . And have become fascinated with it. Emotions running the gamut from amusement to horror. The horror part from the vileness of Libtard. And now I am following this bit by Gene, Slarti and Bron. To know Brons opinion on Regulations on the market will help me follow along better.
Jo,
Bron, et al….Thinks that the FDA is a waste of time and costs consumers…The market will run those with bad products out…I think this is what I recall…I may be wrong…but that is and was my understanding…
Bron, Do you believe there should be no regulations on “the market”?
Slarti:
“A foolish consistency is exactly what you display – i.e. free market capitalism is always best for everything.”
no dip stick, individual liberty is always best for everything. I’ll type really slow so you can understand:
human freedom is based on political and economic freedom. You need both to have liberty.
and please dont bother saying that is anarchy because you are limited by the rights of your neighbor. If you even thought that you are clueless.
“If you don’t think money and/or egotism are the best things in the world, you must be a Marxist/Fascist/Some Other Word He Doesn’t Know The Meaning Of.”
Good straw man there Gene.
I think freedom/liberty and responsibility are the best things in the world, second only to the love of your friends and family and a new puppies wet nose.
I want my children growing up free, they arent now because of people like you and Slarti. I wonder if that is because you dont have children? Still in that me, me, me stage that normal people outgrow when they have children.
You are still a moron even in a nebula.
Let me know when you finally make it out of intellectual adolescence.