Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Biden just now: "executive orders and executive action can be taken" to enact gun control


  • Please log in to reply
204 replies to this topic

#46 Inimicus

Inimicus

    Life is better in a kayak

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,000 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 09:43 AM

So you are saying if some backwoods militia in West Virginia starts killing cops, which escalates to shooting SWAT, which escalates into shooting army/national guard types....the government is just going to give up and say "FUG IT! Those guys are tough!".

Hell no they are going to get blown out of their little mobile homes.



Might want to check with the Soviets about this little shitstorm they got themselves into in Afghanistan in the 80s
Or maybe the US Military and the same hornets nest they kicked over in various parts of the middle and far east over the last 50 years.

Also read your Sun Tzu. Especially the parts about where to confront your enemy with particular attention to the notion of "Deadly Ground".


Anyone who thinks that the US mil could just fly some A10s and Apaches overhead and park an M1A1 on the corner of Main & Market in Anytown, USA and quell a revolution is forgetting their history. The Soviets couldn't stop their Union from breaking down and they had what was at the time either the most or second most advanced military in the world. History is replete with examples of how smaller less technically advanced armies held off and in some cases were victorious against larger better equipped forces.

Also you cant assume that the WV Air Guard would simply fall in lock step with the order to blast their neighbors into oblivion.

#47 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,215 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 10 January 2013 - 09:51 AM

i guess the thing that troubles me is usually those that lean left, seem to have this very odd or almost naive trust of govt. and they don't even mind if the govt is hypocritical or condescending. they just trust them.

i don't mind smarter more common sense gun laws. but thats as far as it needs to go.

#48 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,837 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 02:30 PM

Good stuff.

Have your lackey toss it out there and see how much of a poo storm it would cause....tell him to say that's not what it really meant.

Classic.

#49 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,093 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 10 January 2013 - 02:46 PM

i guess the thing that troubles me is usually those that lean left, seem to have this very odd or almost naive trust of govt. and they don't even mind if the govt is hypocritical or condescending. they just trust them.

i don't mind smarter more common sense gun laws. but thats as far as it needs to go.

I guess the thing that troubles me is usually those that lean right, seem to have this very odd or almost naïve trust of Corporate America, and they don't even mind if Corporate America is hypocritical or condescending. They just trust them.

"I don't mind smarter more common sense gun laws. but that's as far as it needs to go." I have yet to read anything which would lead me to believe our federal government intends to do anything other than that.

#50 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,093 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 10 January 2013 - 04:59 PM

http://www.hulu.com/watch/443675

#51 SuperMan

SuperMan

    I'm always holding back.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,265 posts
  • LocationRaleigh,NC

Posted 10 January 2013 - 05:09 PM

Most unconstitutional president ever.


Ill happily give them my bullets :) if they try to take my guns.

#52 SZ James

SZ James

    1 888 CAM PAIN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,434 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 05:12 PM

^ "law-abiding gun-owner" I presume

#53 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,215 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 10 January 2013 - 05:23 PM

I guess the thing that troubles me is usually those that lean right, seem to have this very odd or almost naïve trust of Corporate America, and they don't even mind if Corporate America is hypocritical or condescending. They just trust them.

"I don't mind smarter more common sense gun laws. but that's as far as it needs to go." I have yet to read anything which would lead me to believe our federal government intends to do anything other than that.


i can take my business elsewhere much easier than i can taxes. also. big corps don't have this neat little luxury called printing money.

#54 SuperMan

SuperMan

    I'm always holding back.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,265 posts
  • LocationRaleigh,NC

Posted 10 January 2013 - 05:44 PM

^ "law-abiding gun-owner" I presume


Yes, I am a responsible gun owner.

CC permit holder and avid supporter of having a gun safe.

Lawful owership of firarms is an undeniable right since the founding of our once great nation, if one man thinks he can deny that I have a feeling there will be a great deal of people who see it the way I do.

#55 logic1977

logic1977

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 384 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 05:52 PM

why do people think that if they pass an executive order that it would be wide ranging, or that it won't get challenged and thrown out.

And guess what, if it doesn't get thrown out in court, then by definition it's constitutional regardless of whether or not you agree with it.

#56 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,407 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 05:54 PM

Firearm deaths are the second leading non-natural forms of death in the US for children.

Cause everybody's a responsible gun owner.

#57 SZ James

SZ James

    1 888 CAM PAIN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,434 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 05:54 PM

^^^that's fine. you're just not one of the law-abiding citizens that people refer to when the "Gun control only affects law-abiding gun ownerz!" argument comes up.

you would be a criminal in other words.

#58 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,407 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 05:55 PM

Laws don't apply to ME cause I'M a good person.

#59 SuperMan

SuperMan

    I'm always holding back.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,265 posts
  • LocationRaleigh,NC

Posted 10 January 2013 - 06:01 PM

^^^that's fine. you're just not one of the law-abiding citizens that people refer to when the "Gun control only affects law-abiding gun ownerz!" argument comes up.

you would be a criminal in other words.


The right to bear arms exists for this very reason.... (a corrupt goverment trying to violate our constitutional rights)

Anyone care to take a look at history and see what happens when leaders disarm the people?

#60 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,093 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 10 January 2013 - 06:04 PM

i can take my business elsewhere much easier than i can taxes. also. big corps don't have this neat little luxury called printing money.

The only allegiance most corporations have in a plutocracy is to their share holders. Big Business has an enormous influence on our political representatives. Bailouts with out accountability, continued exclusive rights to virtually free money via the fed for only the largest financial institutions. Billions in annual subsidies to the most profitable industry the world had ever know, big oil. The bloated MIC? These are just a few Corporate sectors receiving all the benefits of being able to print money without the aggravation of having to actually print it. The only thing preventing Corporate America from completely taking this country back to the age of the "Robber Barons" is an American's right to vote. Citigroup Plutonomy Report Part 2 Mar 5 2006


RISKS -- WHAT COULD GO WRONG?
Our whole plutonomy thesis is based on the idea that the rich will keep getting richer. This thesis is not without its risks. For example, a policy error leading to asset deflation, would likely damage plutonomy. Furthermore, the rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash. Whilst the rich are getting a greater share of the wealth, and the poor a lesser share, political enfrachisement remains as was -- one person, one vote (in the plutonomies). At some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich. This could be felt through higher taxation on the rich (or indirectly though higher corporate taxes/regulation) or through trying to protect indigenous [home-grown] laborers, in a push-back on globalization -- either anti-mmigration, or protectionism. We don’t see this happening yet, though there are signs of rising political tensions. However we are keeping a close eye on developments.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.