Prop 8 aftermath in California

[kitkat]

Originally Posted by metalrat

You live in the pacific northwest? Try and chase down a hunter that knows the mountians. Let me know how that works for ya.

"A" hunter? "A" anything is not a revolution or even a resistance--it's a criminal. And they are reliably caught while hiding in the woods. In fact the "woods" is an easier place to coral and catch a criminal than a city. As for a group, ala resistance fighters, their group heat signature makes that a piece of cake (ever watch a vid of the police copters using that tech in LA? For just "A" criminal?). As i said, there is no place to hide a group and second there is no way to even organize a group of any size, what with the pervasive surveillance of every organizational medium/tool in existence. No, armed resistance is just a fantasy. You can drop that as a rationale for popgun ownership, really. It just no longer makes sense in this day & age.

[kitkat]

Originally Posted by snakesht

I'm starting to think that aside from being a bitter old lady, you are also mildly retarded.

You go right on thinking that--coming from you--that doesn't bother me in the least.

[nsb22]

Originally Posted by BigBadBoom

Key word. When/if this even becomes an issue taken up by the new administration then bitch. What I see now are individual chicken littles running around screaming that the sky is falling.

I just see this as another strawman to rile up gun owners with no evidence that has come to bear. I would guess that the NRA has something to do with this and more than a few smart gun shop owners.

Please do me a favor and go look at Obama's, and just about everyother democrats' voting records when it comes to guns. You may be surprised. It already is a threat. Every year, a gun ban is brought up in Iowa. Has it ever passed? Not yet, thank God.


I am not a member of the NRA. I don't even read gun mags. I am an educated realist who knows shit is going to hit the fan and we will all be fucked.

Ah hell, I did the hard work for you.

Barack Obama on Gun Control

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."
Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views."

Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.

Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008

Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing
Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?
A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month
Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007

Concealed carry OK for retired police officers
Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.
When I queried him about the vote, he said, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms."

It wasn't until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007

Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities
Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?
A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now.

Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007

Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006

Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban
KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that's good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
OBAMA: Let's be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.

Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005

[metalrat]

Originally Posted by kitkat

"A" hunter? "A" anything is not a revolution or even a resistance--it's a criminal. And they are reliably caught while hiding in the woods. In fact the "woods" is an easier place to coral and catch a criminal than a city. As for a group, ala resistance fighters, their group heat signature makes that a piece of cake (ever watch a vid of the police copters using that tech in LA? For just "A" criminal?). As i said, there is no place to hide a group and second there is no way to even organize a group of any size, what with the pervasive surveillance of every organizational medium/tool in existence. No, armed resistance is just a fantasy. You can drop that as a rationale for popgun ownership, really. It just no longer makes sense in this day & age.

Not just "a" hunter, my confused little kitten, but a urban/rural area were anyone can be armed... and a good shot from a surprising distance.
Targets appear... and fade into the surroundings.

The Police force would not be large enough. So lets get the National Guard... No that won't work... Some of them are the fella's wer'e lookin for...

Big population... Lot of ground to cover.

There is not an army large enough for the task.

[beowulf2k]

Hijacked!

[Parabellum]

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.

I have NO problem with what he says here.

You alarmists need to take a deep breath, he is not the big bad wolf that you fear him to be.

[Punkwood2k]

Originally Posted by kitkat

"A" hunter? "A" anything is not a revolution or even a resistance--it's a criminal. And they are reliably caught while hiding in the woods. In fact the "woods" is an easier place to coral and catch a criminal than a city. As for a group, ala resistance fighters, their group heat signature makes that a piece of cake (ever watch a vid of the police copters using that tech in LA? For just "A" criminal?). As i said, there is no place to hide a group and second there is no way to even organize a group of any size, what with the pervasive surveillance of every organizational medium/tool in existence. No, armed resistance is just a fantasy. You can drop that as a rationale for popgun ownership, really. It just no longer makes sense in this day & age.

Al Quaeda in Iraq, Taliban, French Resistance, and the I.R.A. would all politely disagree with you.

[kitkat]

Originally Posted by metalrat

Not just "a" hunter, my confused little kitten, but a urban/rural area were anyone can be armed... and a good shot from a surprising distance.
Targets appear... and fade into the surroundings.

The Police force would not be large enough. So lets get the National Guard... No that won't work... Some of them are the fella's wer'e lookin for...

Big population... Lot of ground to cover.

There is not an army large enough for the task.

They would be labeled domestic terrorists by all mass media from the moment they shot the first person. Any support network they had would have been infiltrated by the gov't from the date of the first attempt at organization. (No need to try and impersonate farsi-speaking natives here). Any public support would vanish with the first pursuer they killed with a wife & kids. They would be tracked down and killed or captured the same as any lunatic fringe lost cause band of criminal murderers has been in the past. No matter how "righteous" their cause they would have no access to any media sufficient to effectively promote their justifications--they would have no public sympathy --or support.

You really have no idea of how alienated from the power of violence "the people" actually are in the face of a modern 21st century technological military/police force-- coupled with a vested mass media machine-- do you? The idea that ownership of popguns would be able to form the basis of a violent & murderous movement large enough to threaten the entire country is simply ludicrous on too many levels to even list.

BTW, the confiscation of firearms has already been widely and successfully carried out by police forces in the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans--house-to-house beginning sept 9th of that year: "Police and soldiers seized numerous guns for fear of confrontations with jittery residents who have armed themselves against looters. "No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons," Deputy Police Chief Riley said. He added: "I don’t know of any incidents where people are being belligerent."--AP sept 9th, 2005 New Orleans. And they continued the confiscation program until March 15th--unopposed--until the courts eventually ordered them to stop.

So people do what they are told...big surprise when confronted by heavily armed and armored troops and police. But not to worry, my "they'll get my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers" friend--

"On October 4, 2006 President George W. Bush signed into law the NRA-backed Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 (incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill). This legislation prohibits the confiscation of otherwise legal firearms from law-abiding citizens during states of emergency by any agent of the Federal Government or anyone receiving Federal funds (effectively, any Federal, state, or local governmental entity). Introduced in Congress by Rep. Bobby Jindal and Sen. David Vitter, both of Louisiana, this bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support, passing the House of Representatives with a margin of 322-99 and the Senate by 84-16."--wikipedia

There are surely ways around that law, but really--the gov't just doesn't care. Because they know--even if the gun nuts do not--that the fabled "armed citizenry" is just simply no longer a substantive threat--or balance-- to gov't power--even when the latter is egregiously misused. We are no more capable of effective revolutionary violence than the pitchfork wielding peasants of the middle ages. That is quite a trip from the days when this country was founded--a day when the privately owned merchant fleet had more cannon power than the US Navy! I am grateful they still allow us effective voting rights, personally--it is the only effective expression of power the people have left versus our government.

[Punkwood2k]

Very few, if ANY popular uprising have had access to mainstream media. ANY number of latin american countries, currently having civil wars or uprisings, are finding out that you dont need the media to find popular support of a revolution. Support is garnered though word of mouth and public sympathy for the rebels.

Even military weapons and might are not in play. When the revolution is growing out of the general populace, military technology is almost completely useless. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are proof of this. Our military is designed for a cold war style battlefield. Our armor against their armor. Our jets against theirs. It is not designed for surgical removal of individual threats. And an ememy that shoots at you, and then disappears into a crowd of people seamlessly is as invisible as you can get. The huge technological advancement the military has over us will be next to useless, unless they get the opportunity to bomb a training camp or something..
the main question is: Will a revolution have the popular support from the people. without popular support, its just a bunch of crazies causing trouble. WITH support, it becomes a revolution.

[beowulf2k]

Alarmist...lolol.

[SXSMITH]

Okay, I found this to be VERY interesting.

I'm signing up for my company benefits during open enrollment.

You can include your married spouse.
You can include your same sex unmarried 'partner'.

But you cannot include your opposite sex 'partner'.

DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do they hate heteros!!!!

[keystonejenks]

To get us back on track here. Apparently the gays are blaming blacks for the failure of Prop 8 and from what I hear it's getting uuuuuuuuuuuugleeeeeee.

[SXSMITH]

Originally Posted by keystonejenks

To get us back on track here. Apparently the gays are blaming blacks for the failure of Prop 8 and from what I hear it's getting uuuuuuuuuuuugleeeeeee.

Bush is Black?

[Parabellum]

Originally Posted by SXSMITH

Okay, I found this to be VERY interesting.

I'm signing up for my company benefits during open enrollment.

You can include your married spouse.
You can include your same sex unmarried 'partner'.

But you cannot include your opposite sex 'partner'.

DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do they hate heteros!!!!

You should be able to include any domestic opposite sex partner if you can prove you have been living together for more than 6 months...that is usually how it works.

[leemajaz]

i don't care either way if they get married or not but it seems a lil strange. do they not already have the right to form a legal union and partake in all the benifits of a traditionally married couple????