NRA

[PaulS]

Do a quick search on "death threats against Obama".

But is he the one who ordered secret service protection for his kids? Did other President's kids have the protection that seems to have gotten everyone riled up or is he being treated differently?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Do a quick search on "death threats against Obama".

But is he the one who ordered secret service protection for his kids? Did other President's kids have the protection that seems to have gotten everyone riled up or is he being treated differently?

noone has suggested the windmills that you are currently jousting....the "thing" that has everyone riled up was his dismissiveness and ridicule of the notion of having guards at schools... as he himself currently enjoys the assurance as a parent that his own children have guards at the school that they attend...for someone that (mis)uses the "h" word so frequently, you should have gotten that part

btw...this happens to be about the only thing that has been proposed that might have stopped the incident at Sandy Hook

[JohnnyD]

Unacceptable when the NRA mentions kids when discussing why gun control won't work. However, it's ok for Obama to leverage the emotional response of children in his speeches and for the gun control crowd to leverage "dead babies" to further their agenda.

Keep guns out of schools (unless the children of high-profile parents attend there).


What's good for the King, the peasants aren't worthy of.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Unacceptable when the NRA mentions kids when discussing why gun control won't work. However, it's ok for Obama to leverage the emotional response of children in his speeches and for the gun control crowd to leverage "dead babies" to further their agenda.

Keep guns out of schools (unless the children of high-profile parents attend there).


What's good for the King, the peasants aren't worthy of.

pretty funny that Spence began this thread whining about an adult conversation on gun control and we've ended up with his hero signing something with a bunch of 5 year olds standing around him.......

great title

"An Infantile Spectacle"

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...cle-86311.html

[buckman]

Come on Scott!
" Even if there's one life to save, then we have an obligation to try "
Wish he felt that way about Benghazi .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

Come on Scott!
" Even if there's one life to save, then we have an obligation to try "
Wish he felt that way about Benghazi .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not to mention the 40,000 plus..plus..plus....dead in Syria thanks to John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi's favorite "reformer"


this is great...

"Here's Mrs. Clinton's fuller quote, from March 27, 2011, answering CBS's Bob Schieffer on why the U.S. was prepared to intervene against Moammar Gadhafi but not against Assad: "There's a different leader in Syria now," she explained. "Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he is a reformer."

That caused some raising of eyebrows. So a few days later Mrs. Clinton clarified: "I referenced the opinions of others. That was not speaking either for myself or for the administration." oops

How could Mrs. Clinton justify administration policy by citing opinions she supposedly refused to endorse? Because she's a genius, obviously. The more relevant point is that she was mouthing the conventional liberal wisdom of the day, which paid more heed to a dictator than to those he repressed. Maybe it's time Assad's apologists apologize to the people of Syria.

A lengthy and mostly flattering New York Times profile from 2005 portrays Assad and his wife Asma as a progressive duo struggling to drag their unwieldy country into the 21st century—while trying to deal with an inept Bush administration too stupid to engage him or give him latitude for reform. sounds strangely familiar

Also in 2005, a ferocious battle erupted in the U.S. Senate over the confirmation of John Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. A key point of contention: his congressional testimony from late 2003 claiming Damascus had "one of the most advanced Arab state chemical weapons capabilities," and that it might have a covert interest in developing a nuclear bomb. The CIA reportedly went berserk over what it considered Mr. Bolton's undue alarmism, which would later help sink his nomination in the Senate.

What came next was a chorus of congressional sycophancy. In 2007, Nancy Pelosi enthused that "the road to Damascus is a road to peace." On March 16, 2011—the day after the first mass demonstration against the regime—John Kerry said Assad was a man of his word who had been "very generous with me." He added that under Assad "Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States." This is the man who might be our next secretary of state."



it's just "bizarro world"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

" Even if there's one life to save, then we have an obligation to try "
Wish he felt that way about Benghazi .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wish someone put that to Obama. Good point!

[PaulS]

(Reuters) - New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie harshly criticized the National Rifle Association on Thursday for referring to U.S. President Barack Obama's children in an ad that advocates putting armed guards in schools, calling it "reprehensible" and "wrong."

"I think it's awful to bring public figures' children into the political debate," Christie said at a press conference in Trenton, New Jersey.

The NRA ad, posted online on Tuesday, calls Obama a "hypocrite" for expressing skepticism over a NRA proposal to put more armed guards in schools following the shooting in a Newtown, Connecticut, school last month that killed 26 people, 20 of them six and seven years old.

"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" a narrator asks in the ad, pointing out that Obama's two daughters have Secret Service protection.

"To talk about the president's children or any public officer's children who have - not by their own choice, but by requirement - to have protection, to use that somehow to try to make a political point is reprehensible,"

"I think any of us who are public figures, you see that ad and you cringe," said

Christie, who is considered a possible Republican presidential contender in 2016, said the ad undermines the NRA's credibility at time when gun control has moved to the center of the political debate.

"It's wrong and I think it demeans them and it makes them less of a valid trusted source of information on the real issues that confront this debate," he said.

[Jim in CT]

I hear a lot of folks saying that the children of politicians should be off limits. I guess the Democrats forgot to read that memo when Sarah Palin was running for VP, because not only were her kids mentioned, but they were attacked. Her youngest son with Downs Syndrome was used to start rumors about the family. What's good for the goose...

I could care less what Christie said. He's entitled to his opinion of course, but that doesn't mean he's correct.

Obama's children enjoy the peace of mind that can be achieved when you have professionaly trained armed guards looking after your kids.

Christie says that Joe Shmo's kids aren't as threatened as the presidents kids. He may have a point. Then again, 20 parents in Newtown CT might disagree.

Between the threat of terrorism and the threat of crazy would-be mass murderers, our kids are vulnerable to a threat. Is any one child as specifically threatened as the children of the President? Probably not. And that's why no one is saying that every kid needs his own team of secret service agents.

I see the armed guard thing as a local issue. If my town decides it's a good idea and we're willing to pay for it, we should be able to do it.

And anyone who claims that Obama's proposed "gun safety" bill will have a menaingful impact, is a blind ideologue. It's cannot do much. Most crimes don't use these weapons. And his bill completely fails to address the root causes of violence - poverty, family values (or complete lack thereof in the liberal agenda), mental illness.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I hear a lot of folks saying that the children of politicians should be off limits. I guess the Democrats forgot to read that memo when Sarah Palin was running for VP, because not only were her kids mentioned, but they were attacked. Her youngest son with Downs Syndrome was used to start rumors about the family. What's good for the goose...

funny, I remember how indignant you were then (rightfully so). But now it is ok?

Chelsea Clinton? Any Carter?

[Jackbass]

I tend to agree with Christie on this. Obamas kids need more protection just due to the fact that they are his kids.

That being said Obama using children to promote his gun control package is nearly as bad.

"I have seen studies suggesting that stricter gun laws disarm law-abiding citizens and make it easier for violent criminals to operate. But I’m open to reviewing new data if the President has some to offer after he’s done tweeting the most recent missive from an eight-year-old."

This was my favorite quote of an article written by Carrie Lukas - Women And Policy - Forbes

She brings up some decent points.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Both of those 2's looks were repeatedly mocked.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Both of those 2's looks were repeatedly mocked.

By whom? Comedians or news broadcasters?

[TheSpecialist]

Here is further proof of the Democratic Agenda to get an Assault Weapons Ban. Biden telling the NRA they have no money, time or resources to go after people breaking Federal gun laws punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Way to go idiot!





VP: We 'don't have the time' to charge background check lies | The Daily Caller

[likwid]

Guys, Wayne LaPierre has the answer to all our woes.
If we ban violent movies and violent video games people will stop shooting each other.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by likwid

Guys, Wayne LaPierre has the answer to all our woes.
If we ban violent movies and violent video games people will stop shooting each other.

Sort of the same answer the president has, if you ban guns it will solve our woes. Both guys are idiotic....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Sort of the same answer the president has, if you ban guns it will solve our woes. Both guys are idiotic....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where did the President say if you banned all guns it would solve our woes?

[spence]

Originally Posted by likwid

Where did the President say if you banned all guns it would solve our woes?

He didn't, never has.

It's one of the fundamental problems with the entire gun debate. The gun advocates are pushing against a total ban to give them energy...while public opinion is heavy on reasonable control.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

He didn't, never has.

It's one of the fundamental problems with the entire gun debate. The gun advocates are pushing against a total ban to give them energy...while public opinion is heavy on reasonable control.

-spence

Again, since you continually ignore my replies, what is "reasonable control"? What is the statistical evidence to support any of the legislation being proposed in any state or at the federal level?

Care to support your claim that "public opinion is heavy on reasonable control"?

Seems more like the public would like existing laws to be enforced, see:
57% Think Enforcing Current Gun Laws More Important Than Creating New Laws - Rasmussen Reports
"just 32% of American Adults believe creation of new gun control laws is more important. Fifty-seven percent (57%) think more emphasis should be put on stricter enforcement of existing gun control laws."

65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny - Rasmussen Reports
"Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their home hold that view. " (emphasis mine)

If someone wants to claim bias, this is from an organization whose head *wants* Congress to enact more laws:
Rasmussen on gun violence: taking no action ‘perfectly wrong’ | TheBlaze.com


How about the Gallop poll? 51% against a new AWB.
Guns

So, once again spence, how about putting away feel good terms like "reasonable control" and actually being explicit? Provide some support that "public opinion is heavy on reasonable control".

Also, do you still disagree with Clinton and think it wasn't their gun control measures in '94 that beheaded the Democrats for almost a decade?

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

It's one of the fundamental problems with the entire gun debate. The gun advocates are pushing against a total ban to give them energy...while public opinion is heavy on reasonable control.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)

[scottw]

Originally Posted by likwid

Guys, Wayne LaPierre has the answer to all our woes.
If we ban violent movies and violent video games people will stop shooting each other.

Where did the President say if you banned all guns it would solve our woes? Likwid.

where/when did LaPierre say that banning violent movies and video games would be the answer to all of our woes????

[Piscator]

Ok, so banning certain guns will solve or woes........idiotic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Ok, so banning certain guns will solve or woes........idiotic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think everyone agrees that there are no perfect "solutions" per say.

-spence

[Pete F.]

Luckily I live in Vermont
Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
this has been in court before and if you are asked: why is that gun loaded, the answer is for my defense.

[buckman]

I look at it like banning extra large soda drinks. It won't accomplish anything but some will say " well you have to start somewhere " . And there lies the truth behind an agenda
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I look at it like banning extra large soda drinks. It won't accomplish anything but some will say " well you have to start somewhere " . And there lies the truth behind an agenda
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the goal is total control over the people I think you'd want them as fat and sickly diabetic as possible.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

If the goal is total control over the people I think you'd want them as fat and sickly diabetic as possible.

-spence

You don't seem to grasp the method toward "total" control of the people employed by "soft tyranny" or "soft despotism." A soft despot is one who believes he has the well-being of the people as his goal, but that the people do not know what is best for them. He must convince them that he knows best and should be trusted with their welfare more than they themselves. He does that with language, often Orwellian, more than with weapons. As Woodrow Wilson said in his "The Study of Administration":

"Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow-citizens to want some change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion it its way."

In America he must effect that change in its Constitution by transforming it from an immutable law that protects individual inalienable rights inherited by their nature and granted by nature's God, to a living and changeable system of government which grants those rights and without which there are no rights. And that government will be by men, not by law, and by men who are "experts," who will be the trustees and administrators of the good that will be regulated for and to the people.

And, as competent admistrators, the soft despots must not allow the people to become fat and diabetic, for that would create a financial, distributive, and moral burden on society, and especially on the administration. Limit and regulate the amount of fats and sugars in packaged foods, for instance, and regulate the size of soft drinks and tax and regulate destructive behaviour such as smoking, etc.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You don't seem to grasp the method toward "total" control of the people employed by "soft tyranny" or "soft despotism." A soft despot is one who believes he has the well-being of the people as his goal, but that the people do not know what is best for them. He must convince them that he knows best and should be trusted with their welfare more than they themselves. He does that with language, often Orwellian, more than with weapons. As Woodrow Wilson said in his "The Study of Administration":

"Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow-citizens to want some change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion it its way."

In America he must effect that change in its Constitution by transforming it from an immutable law that protects individual inalienable rights inherited by their nature and granted by nature's God, to a living and changeable system of government which grants those rights and without which there are no rights. And that government will be by men, not by law, and by men who are "experts," who will be the trustees and administrators of the good that will be regulated for and to the people.

And, as competent admistrators, the soft despots must not allow the people to become fat and diabetic, for that would create a financial, distributive, and moral burden on society, and especially on the administration. Limit and regulate the amount of fats and sugars in packaged foods, for instance, and regulate the size of soft drinks and tax and regulate destructive behaviour such as smoking, etc.

I see, so the majority doesn't want stronger gun control because it's a rationally thought out position...but because their feeble minds have been controlled. Nice...

It's interesting you've quoted Wilson as some thought leader in progressive manipulation as casually as ScottW likes to trot out Saul Alinksy.

I like the text that precedes your quote:

Wherever regard for public opinion is a first principle of government, practical reform must be slow and all reform must be full of compromises. For wherever public opinion exists it must rule. This is now an axiom half the world over, and will presently come to be believed even in Russia.

Context is important here as at the time Alexander III was brutally cracking down on dissent against the will of the people.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I see, so the majority doesn't want stronger gun control because it's a rationally thought out position...but because their feeble minds have been controlled. Nice...

I don't know what you think I was responding to, but it was to your "If the goal is total control over the people I think you'd want them as fat and sickly diabetic as possible." Ergo my note on soft despotism and the Wilsonian quotes. And so how soft tyranny would not "want them as fat and sickly diabetic as possible."

It's interesting you've quoted Wilson as some thought leader in progressive manipulation as casually as ScottW likes to trot out Saul Alinksy.

I have quoted other founders of the progressive movement, and none of it was casual. Nor do I think ScottW casually "trot" out Saul Alinsky. He does so with thoughtful application. Your attempt to marginalize by ridicule is Alinsky-like.

I have quoted Wilson, Dewey, Goodnow, and Croly, because they were intellectual and philosophical founders of the progressive movement. And especially Wilson because he was the most influental, especially as President.

I like the text that precedes your quote:

The text you cite speaks about public opinion ruling and reforms being slow and full of compromises. So what follows (and that which I quote) explains why it is necessary to bend popular opinion to that which would fit the desire of "whoever would effect a change . . ." Wilson was all about changing opinion about our system of government, and knew it would be difficult because it was so entrenched in the American mind. He said in the next paragraph of the same essay:

"Institutions which one generation regards as only a makeshift approximation to the realization of a principle, the next generation honors as the nearest possible approximation to that principle, and the next worships as the principle itself. It takes scarcely three generations for the apotheosis."

He was not an admirer of the common man's intellect, and was an elitist (as well as what liberals would now consider a racist). But he was, as were most progressives of the era, a moralist and a church goer, and was also, when he wrote "The Study of Administration," a believer in maintaining Americanism and its Constitution. Except that the Constitution was to be transformed into a living document, and government was also to be a living organism not merely a static structure.

But he also evolved into a lesser admirer of the Constitution, especially as President when he attempted to apply his progressive ideology. It was in his 1913 essay "What is Progress?" that he expounded his idea of a living Constitution that must evolve with time in a Darwinian fashion and that progress called for the elimination of obstacles such as checks and balances which interfered with the efficient administration of Central governance.

The progressives of today have evolved beyond Wilson and the early founders of the movement. They are not so careful of trying to maintain Americanism, or even a Darwinian Constitution. Quoting the progressives after Wilson would remove the idealism of progressive thought and expose it to be simply a hypocritical massive power grab by central authorities, ostensibly with the same ideal as service to the people, but not with the honor to American principles that Woodrow Wilson thought he espoused. His first disciple to achieve the presidency, FDR, governed in a way that Wilson disapproved. In his 1908 essay "The President of the United States" Wilson said:

"There are illegitimate means by which the President may influence the action of Congress. He may bargain with members, not only with regard to appointments, but also with regard to legislative measures. He may use his local patronage to assist members to get or retain their seats. He may interpose his powerful influence, in one covert way or another, in contests for places in the Senate. He may also overbear Congress by arbitrary acts which ignore the laws or virtually override them. He may even substitute his own orders for acts of Congress which he wants but cannot get. Such things are not only deeply immoral, they are destructive of the fundamental understandings of constitutional government, and, therefor, of constitutional government itself. . . . Nothing in a system like ours can be constitutional which is immoral or which touches the good faith of those who have sworn to obey the fundamental law."

It is in exactly these immoral ways that FDR brought into concrete existence the administrative state that Wilson so wanted, and the ways that president's, even more so progressive presidents, have ruled since. Wilson had too much faith in the progress of history which he believed had arrived at a point where we no longer had to fear powerful centralized government such as had existed under monarchies and ancient tyrannies. He said, also in "The Study of Administration,": "There is no danger in power, if only it be not irresponsible." And that it would be forced to be responsible the more it was centralized rather than dispersed because dispersion would hide it and centralizing it would make it "more easily watched and brought to book." It seems now, on the contrary, that blatant immorally unconstitutional actions by central authority are either not noticed or accepted as the way it should be.

That he favored central control of governance above constitutional checks and balances is also evident in his essay "Socialism and Democracy." In it he is approbative of socialism and he says:

"The thesis of the state socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory. . . For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals."

It is that socialistic strain that engenders the need for central authority and which has remained and expanded in progressive ideology. And not only is power not to be feared but neither is there fear of taint by implanting a powerful foreign 19th century German/French administrative system of governance into the American constitutional way. He said "We borrowed rice but we do not eat it with chopsticks." But governing is not like eating rice. You don't have to eat rice. But you cannot resist a government that is more powerful than you and is decreed by a "living Constitution" to do for you rather than being constrained by a legal Constitution which decrees what it must not do.

The progressives of today have evolved far beyond Wilson's vision, taking on that of FDR and becoming the foreign thing that Wilson thought was not possible. The benevolent central state operates in the way he said was immoral and by a more ancient top down authoritarian way that is antithetical to the Founders "American" way. And in this manner we have been progressively governed from FDR to his disciple Obama. And, like Wilson, we refer to ourselves as a Democracy not a Republic. And, as Wilson said, "in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same." That minute distinction "not quite" has diminished even further. And progressives are now becoming more open about not just adhering to a "living" Constitution, but about discarding the hypocrisy by openly abandoning constitutional shackles , as the constitutional law professor Seidman proposed in his NY Times op ed.


Context is important here as at the time Alexander III was brutally cracking down on dissent against the will of the people.

-spence

And the obstinate American will could not be cracked down by such harsh tyranny, but had to be persuaded by a softer one which saw "to it that it listen to the right things . . . and then manage to put the right opinion in its way."

[spence]

I'm tending to my boeuf bourguignon. Take your time

-spence