GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/01/24/why-always-empower-the-state/trackback/

  1. A lot of gays become leftists for similar reasons; the state becomes their surrogate family. I guess an abusive and repressive parent is better than no parent at all.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 8:43 am - January 24, 2013

  2. Post-Presidency Gun Views

    Before Reagan left office in January 1989, efforts were afoot in Congress to pass legislation creating a national background check and mandatory waiting period for handgun purchases. The Brady Bill, as the legislation was named, had the backing of Sarah Brady, the wife of former Reagan press secretary Jim Brady, who was wounded in a 1981 assassination attempt on the president.

    The Brady Bill initially struggled for support in Congress, but was gaining ground by the latter days of Reagan’s predecessor, President George H.W. Bush. In a 1991 op-ed for the New York Times, Reagan voiced his support for the Brady Bill, saying the 1981 assassination attempt might have never happened if the Brady Bill had been law.

    Citing statistics suggesting 9,200 murders are committed each year in the United States using handguns, Reagan said, “This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them.” It was a 180 degree turn from Reagan’s 1975 piece in Guns & Ammo magazine, when he said that gun control is pointless because murder cannot be prevented.

    Three years later, Congress had passed the Brady Bill and was working on another piece of gun control legislation, a ban on assault weapons. Reagan joined former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in a letter published in the Boston Globe that called on Congress to pass a ban on assault weapons. Later, in a letter to Rep. Scott Klug, a Wisconsin Republican, Reagan said the limitations proposed by the Assault Weapon Ban “are absolutely necessary” and that it “must be passed.” Klug voted in favor of the ban.

    Comment by rusty — January 24, 2013 @ 9:37 am - January 24, 2013

  3. @rusty

    So?

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 24, 2013 @ 9:46 am - January 24, 2013

  4. Indeed, so?

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 9:55 am - January 24, 2013

  5. I think leftists love the “Appeal to Authority” fallacy is because at heart, they are fascists, and are accustomed to bowing to authority and worshiping power.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 10:02 am - January 24, 2013

  6. The letter from three former presidents to the House:

    May 3, 1994

    To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:

    We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

    Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

    The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

    While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

    Sincerely,

    Gerald R. Ford

    Jimmy Carter

    Ronald Reagan

    Comment by rusty — January 24, 2013 @ 10:19 am - January 24, 2013

  7. Yes, the theory is plausible. But, applying it to all anti-gun people and liberals in general would be gross overreach.

    Oswald Spengler wrote about the tension between “culture” which he says is of the heart and is the child of the country and “civilization” which he says is the intellectual streamlining that comes out of the city. He wrote of the country: “… In place of a type-true people, born of and grown on the soil, there is a new sort of nomad, cohering unstably in fluid masses, the parasitical city dweller, traditionless, utterly matter-of-fact, religionless, clever, unfruitful, deeply contemptuous of the countryman and especially that highest form of countryman, the country gentleman.”

    Progressives are dedicated to taking “civilization” to a level of organization that eliminates “misery” and ushers in a culture of happiness. This infantile motivation leads them to worship science as the means to subjecting the forces of nature and leading to the pleasurable satisfaction that results from taming nature. Clear water for all. No disease. Absence of pain. Efficiency. Elimination of anxiety. No suffering. Metaphysical joy from artistic creation, solving problems, discovering “truths,” heightening pleasure.

    To accomplish this, religion must be eliminated because for Progressives religion plays on man’s fears and rests on a judgmental structure which destroys self-worth and happiness with an overbearing burden of guilt.

    Progressive government is a prosthetic God which operates by “good men” giving “good guidance” for the “good” of the people. Instead of a sky-guy and a dusty bunch of books and traditions, government is both civilization and culture.

    Ablow has looked at Obama as a psychiatrist in order to posit why Obama has arrived at the place in which is mind is at home.

    Progressives arrive at the place in which Obama dwells through different backgrounds. But they come together at the same place where all socialists/communists have started their journey.

    What Progressives do not understand is that happiness is not the absence of pollution, disease, pain, efficiency, anxiety, suffering, etc. I would think that the faith and optimism of Progressives should show them to have far fewer incidences of depression, divorce, suicide, etc. than among the cultural peasants who cling to their Bibles and guns.

    ‘You know what? What good is individual autonomy in decision making? What good did it do me? The collective is what needs to be empowered, and all the better if I am the center of that collective and the most powerful person in it.’”

    “His solution runs psychologically in the direction of disempowering the individual every single time,” Ablow said…

    The battle here is plain. Does government get out of the way of individual autonomy as much as possible, or does government disempower individual autonomy and overwhelm it with the collective?

    The part of Ablow’s “diagnosis” about Obama maneuvering to be the most powerful person in the collective is dead on. That is exactly how dictators operate.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 24, 2013 @ 10:36 am - January 24, 2013

  8. Reagan’s position on the Brady Bill was wrong.

    Having said that: Reagan’s solutions to problems didn’t run in the direction of empowering the State (disempowering the individual) every single time. But Obama’s do. Why?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 24, 2013 @ 11:21 am - January 24, 2013

  9. Foolish error in #7: He wrote of the country city: “… In place of a type-true people, born of and grown on the soil, there is a new sort of nomad, cohering unstably in fluid masses, the parasitical city dweller, traditionless, utterly matter-of-fact, religionless, clever, unfruitful, deeply contemptuous of the countryman and especially that highest form of countryman, the country gentleman.”

    Comment by heliotrope — January 24, 2013 @ 11:56 am - January 24, 2013

  10. Warmed over Appeal to Authority is even less effective than fresh Appeal to Authority.

    I just don’t see how it is supposed to be persuasive.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 12:10 pm - January 24, 2013

  11. No expert on this, but I do not believe that banning “assault weapons” (in scare quotes because they are equally defense weapons) would have stopped the insane John Hinckley, Jr. from shooting at Reagan with a .22 caliber revolver. For Reagan and Brady to have suggested otherwise, was likely not right.

    I think I can understand their feelings. When you’ve been shot at and paralyzed (in Brady’s case), you wish you hadn’t been, and you want to ‘do something’. But that doesn’t make your proposals automatically right.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 24, 2013 @ 12:42 pm - January 24, 2013

  12. Leftists call them “Assault Weapons” because they focus-grouped what language was most effective into scaring people to embrace gun control. The term is effectively meaningless except as a political tool.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 12:44 pm - January 24, 2013

  13. The left is content to work incrementally; instead of banning all weapons at once, ban some number of them and then incrementally expand the list until all of them are illegal. Every sentient being knows that is the eventual goal.

    Curious how journalists, who presumably support the guarantees of the First Amendment, would react if the Government told them that… for the public good, of course…. they would be banned from covering certain stories, and all of the stories they did report on would be subject to Government Review and Approval (registration). Those are identical to the restrictions they wish to apply to gun owners.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 12:48 pm - January 24, 2013

  14. If Obama were doing it, they’d react positively. “Yay, we need to becomes more like China, and the Dear Leader is making us!”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 24, 2013 @ 12:52 pm - January 24, 2013

  15. when you have a background as zero, anything is possible.

    Your mother is a whore moving from man to man, carefully selecting them among third worlders (there is also the other obvious explanation that she was way too ugly and graceless to be wife material even in rural Kansas in the 50s (check pics for evidence).

    Your father is a dead beater drunken polygamist that never bothered to meet you.

    but the problem is not him. It is that 50millions Americans who never had such dysfunctional family voted for him, projecting his mental problems on all of us and on our future

    Comment by susan — January 24, 2013 @ 1:12 pm - January 24, 2013

  16. Moreover, notice something here.

    Rusty doesn’t even try to defend Obama’s position or present a rational argument for why Obama feels that way.

    Instead rusty screams that Reagan did it and therefore if you don’t support Obama, you’re a hypocrite.

    Classic Alinsky Rule #4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this.

    And that is the point.

    Rusty is not interested in intelligent or logical discussion. He is interested only in silencing and killing those who he believes to be his enemies.

    Rusty is really no different than Passing By or Levi. He doesn’t add anything to the discussion; all he does is attack and blame conservatives and Republicans.

    ILC’s superiority to rusty is obvious in the fact that ILC is willing to state that Reagan was wrong. For rusty to admit that Obama is wrong would shatter rusty’s self-esteem, since rusty’s entire sense of self-worth is tied up in his liberalism and in his liberal viewpoints always being correct.

    And the same applies to Obama. Obama is a mental cripple like rusty, unable to admit that his beliefs might not always be right, unable to acknowledge that his solutions might not be the bad one. Like rusty, Obama’s entire sense of self-worth and esteem is tied up in his always getting his way and his adherence to liberal beliefs making him superior to others.

    It’s really no more difficult to explain than that. Obama made a stupid snap decision to confiscate all guns because he wants to, and is unable to back down from it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2013 @ 2:30 pm - January 24, 2013

  17. It’s also really tedious when people do nothing cut and paste things they find on left-wing blogs. To me, it just demonstrates the inability of leftists to think independently.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 2:52 pm - January 24, 2013

  18. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this.

    Except conservatives don’t have a rule that all of their positions must be dictated by Ronald Reagan, so this is just another case where conservatives are hypocrites for not conforming with the stereotype leftists believe in.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 24, 2013 @ 3:09 pm - January 24, 2013

  19. Reagan is fondly remembered as a defender of the Constitution and of gun rights. However, while remaining true to that underlying belief, Reagan, before, during and after his presidency, supported common-sense gun restrictions that were compatible with the Second Amendment.

    While still president in 1986, Reagan signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was hailed by gun rights advocates because it included numerous protections for gun owners. However, it also banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.

    Then, in 1991, four years after the controversial Brady Bill was introduced in Congress and with passage again in doubt, Reagan penned an op-ed in The New York Times titled “Why I’m for the Brady Bill.” In it, he expressed support for a seven-day waiting period before a purchaser could take possession of a handgun, an even more stringent restriction than the five day cooling-off period that was included in the final legislation, and less stringent than the 15-day cooling-off period he signed into law as governor of California. Reagan stated that prohibitions on sales to felons, drug addicts and the mentally ill had “no enforcement mechanism” and that “a uniform standard across the country” was necessary.

    Regarding handguns, Reagan stated, “This level of violence must be stopped … If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.”

    Finally, in 1994, Reagan successfully threw his support behind the Assault Weapons Ban in a joint letter to the Boston Globe, saying, “As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms … I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary.” The ban on assault weapons had a sunset provision and lapsed in 2004, and many gun advocates have strongly opposed any attempts to pass it again, including after the Newtown massacre.

    Was Reagan a heretic, an apostate, an unprincipled Constitution shredder, an inauthentic conservative, as some have accused me of being after I suggested recently that we should support sensible gun restrictions? Of course not.

    Reagan appreciated that Second Amendment does not say whatever you want it to say and that there was nothing incompatible with those rights and appropriate safeguards. Reagan also appreciated that, politically, doing nothing in the face of carnage was unacceptable.

    The brilliance of Reagan’s leadership was that, although he was a conservative, he was willing to compromise and be pragmatic. That didn’t make him unprincipled or insincere. Then again, as Jeb Bush has observed, perhaps even Reagan was unfit for the current-day version of the movement he fathered, as there exists “an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement.”

    Comment by rusty — January 24, 2013 @ 3:10 pm - January 24, 2013

  20. http://articles.courant.com/2013-01-11/news/hc-op-joshpe-ronald-reagan-supported-gun-restricti-20130111_1_gun-restrictions-gun-rights-brady-bill

    Ronald Reagan Understood Gun Control
    January 11, 2013|By BRETT JOSHPE | OP-ED, The Hartford Courant
    In the wake of the massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, many conservatives have shown little inclination to consider new legislation on gun access. Those of us on the right who have expressed receptiveness to new proposals have been criticized within our own ranks.

    By the standards of certain modern-day conservatives, however, even Ronald Reagan was a traitor to the Second Amendment and the conservative cause. After all, he signed into law gun restrictions that still exist today and was a strong voice in ensuring passage of others after his presidency.

    Comment by rusty — January 24, 2013 @ 3:12 pm - January 24, 2013

  21. It’s amusing to see when someone has an ‘appeal to authority’ argument, all they can do when it’s ignored is to shout it LOUDER.

    And still not answer the question… So?

    President Reagan believed in a free market and opposed nationalizing health care. Would the dems like to agree with him there too?

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 24, 2013 @ 3:20 pm - January 24, 2013

  22. Again, rusty, you’re not making an intelligent argument.

    We shall take your desperation and continued flailing that “Reagan did it so you have to support it!” as a sign that you don’t have an intelligent, rational, or persuasive argument for Barack Obama’s own stupidity and instead are simply trying to silence conservatives.

    Especially since we are aware that mere months ago, you and your fellow Obama pigs were trashing Reagan as a senile idiot who didn’t know what he was doing or what he was saying even when he was in office.

    So answer that one before you proceed, rusty: were you and your fellow Obama gun-grabbers lying when you said Reagan should never be listened to before, or are you lying now?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2013 @ 3:27 pm - January 24, 2013

  23. By the standards of certain modern-day conservatives, however, even Ronald Reagan was a traitor to the Second Amendment and the conservative cause. After all, he signed into law gun restrictions that still exist today and was a strong voice in ensuring passage of others after his presidency.

    Comment by rusty — January 24, 2013 @ 3:12 pm – January 24, 2013

    Alinsky #4.

    I think by now any of you that had notions that rusty was a worthwhile or intelligent person should be overcoming them. He’s just another Obama bigot, a desperate and stupid hypocrite that shrieks the Constitution gives him the “right” to gay-sex marriage while demanding that the rest of us be stripped of our clearly-enumerated right to bear arms.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2013 @ 3:30 pm - January 24, 2013

  24. The brilliance of Reagan’s leadership was that, although he was a conservative, he was willing to compromise and be pragmatic. That didn’t make him unprincipled or insincere. Then again, as Jeb Bush has observed, perhaps even Reagan was unfit for the current-day version of the movement he fathered, as there exists “an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement.”

    http://articles.courant.com/2013-01-11/news/hc-op-joshpe-ronald-reagan-supported-gun-restricti-20130111_1_gun-restrictions-gun-rights-brady-bill

    Comment by rusty — January 24, 2013 @ 3:43 pm - January 24, 2013

  25. Also, one must remember the Democrats in Reagan’s Era were considerably less radical (and deranged) than the current bunch.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 4:37 pm - January 24, 2013

  26. New York Times Opinion By Ronald Reagan; Ronald Reagan, in announcing support for the Brady bill yesterday, reminded his audience he is a member of the National Rifle Association Published: March 29, 1991:

    …..This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now — the Brady bill — had been law back in 1981.

    Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.

    While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.

    The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser’s sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill — on a nationwide scale — can’t help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.

    And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.

    Critics claim that “waiting period” legislation in the states that have it doesn’t work, that criminals just go to nearby states that lack such laws to buy their weapons. True enough, and all the more reason to have a Federal law that fills the gaps. While the Brady bill would not apply to states that already have waiting periods of at least seven days or that already require background checks, it would automatically cover the states that don’t. The effect would be a uniform standard across the country.

    Now, let’s take a look at how Reagan’s “epiphany” is treated by the hard core Progressive left, as brought here by commenter Rusty:

    The brilliance of Reagan’s leadership was that, although he was a conservative, he was willing to compromise and be pragmatic. That didn’t make him unprincipled or insincere. Then again, as Jeb Bush has observed, perhaps even Reagan was unfit for the current-day version of the movement he fathered, as there exists “an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement.

    and…

    By the standards of certain modern-day conservatives, however, even Ronald Reagan was a traitor to the Second Amendment and the conservative cause. After all, he signed into law gun restrictions that still exist today and was a strong voice in ensuring passage of others after his presidency.

    Fact: Read Reagan’s support of the Brady bill in which he wrote that “(…) this bill — on a nationwide scale — can’t help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.”

    Conjecture by radical Progressives: “perhaps even Reagan was unfit for the current-day version of the movement he fathered, as there exists ‘an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement.’”

    Conjecture by radical Progressives: “By the standards of certain modern-day conservatives, however, even Ronald Reagan was a traitor to the Second Amendment and the conservative cause.”

    It is Rusty and his quote sources who are calling Reagan a traitor and one who, by virtue of being a conservative, holds “an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement.”

    Rusty posits a totally sham argument. There is no “orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement” on a no-holds-barred access to any and all forms of firepower. Furthermore, and to the point, Reagan’s support of helping to prevent “thousands” of (all ready) illegal handgun purchases” is in no way, shape or manner equivalent to Feinstein’s grocery list of weapons to be banned. That is to say, your attempt to drag Reagan’s 1991 “opinion” to this argument is a ridiculous non-starter.

    The crux of Rusty’s efforts is to paint conservatives into the “foolish consistency of little minds” box.

    Now lets go to Emerson for the actual quote:

    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

    The principle of gun ownership enshrined in the Second Amendment is under serious attack. Nothing Reagan said was contradictory to that principle.

    Perhaps you are unaware of the wording in the Second Amendment: “….the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL not be infringed.”

    Notice I made a big deal of SHALL and I did so for no small reason. In the law of statutes, contracts, constitutions, etc. “shall” is an imperative command which makes it the duty or requirement to …..

    “Shall not be infringed” is a command that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is inviolate.

    The state has determined age restrictions, mental capacity restrictions, safety restrictions, and a “reasonable and proper” definition of what constitutes “arms.” Every aspect of these restrictions is subject to conservative and liberal interpretations. In every case, liberals are likely to disagree among themselves in making interpretations as are conservatives.

    Now, just what is the issue concerning Ronald Reagan?

    Comment by heliotrope — January 24, 2013 @ 4:45 pm - January 24, 2013

  27. BRETT JOSHPE

    http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Republicans-in-need-of-sensible-gun-laws-4147638.php

    http://articles.courant.com/2013-01-11/news/hc-op-joshpe-ronald-reagan-supported-gun-restricti-20130111_1_gun-restrictions-gun-rights-brady-bill

    Brett Joshpe is co-author of “Why You’re Wrong About the Right” (Threshold Editions, 2008) and is an attorney in New York City

    http://spectator.org/people/brett-joshpe/all

    Comment by rusty — January 24, 2013 @ 4:55 pm - January 24, 2013

  28. Brett Joshpe is co-author, along with S.E. Cupp, of the book, “Why You’re Wrong About the Right: Behind the Myths: The Surprising Truth About Conservatives” (Simon & Schuster, May 2008).

    Comment by rusty — January 24, 2013 @ 5:13 pm - January 24, 2013

  29. To all statists, the state is a monolithic entity which needs only the right personification (President) to vindicate its worshippers and “get the bad guys”, whoever they may be at the time. Most of the people who are for massive federal intervention seldom ever attain respect from others or property of their own merits. They use the government, Hollywood, and the media to make them look good. They can rarely do so for themselves, because too many people around them know them as they are.

    Comment by Douglas — January 24, 2013 @ 5:22 pm - January 24, 2013

  30. One hesitates to point out that by 1994, Reagan may well have already been feeling the effects of Alzheimer’s.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 5:43 pm - January 24, 2013

  31. If the security certificate for the website is functional, check out the love rusty and his fellow Firedoglake moonbats were giving Brett Joshpe previously.

    This is what makes liberals so hilarious. They’re like spoiled bratty children who honestly think they can get away with their lies.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2013 @ 5:55 pm - January 24, 2013

  32. I think the analysis is simpler: Obama is a modern-day liberal. These are people who honestly think they are smarter than everyone else and cannot contain their contempt for the stupid that fail to see their brilliance. (Stupid defined as someone not in lockstep with them.)

    As Mark Steyn has pointed out, gun control is not about controlling guns, it’s controlling citizens (a quaint term). Ditto for nationalized healthcare – once the transition is complete, the state controls your body.

    The Sandy Hook atrocity to these people is little more than another club with which to bludgeon the morons who refuse to get with their program.

    I came across this the other day: 80 percent of the homicides in Nebraska occur in one little area of Omaha. Instead of dealing honestly with the facts on the ground, it’s easier to go after so-called “assault rifles” – used in very few crimes – and owned mostly by people with little more than a parking ticket to their names.

    http://m.journalstar.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/omaha-looks-to-combat-its-homicide-problem/article_6cc3b814-e58b-5141-9ced-c6a3d005b6f3.html

    The libs have performed a service, though. I finally got round to renewing my NRA membership and have joined Gun Owners of America. Now to save up for that sweet AR.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — January 24, 2013 @ 7:48 pm - January 24, 2013

  33. Reagan’s support of helping to prevent “thousands” of (already) illegal handgun purchases” is in no way, shape or manner equivalent to Feinstein’s grocery list of weapons to be banned.

    Yup. That’s the difference between liberal and conservative gun control. Conservatives prefer (even if it’s wishful thinking) to take guns from criminals and are unhappy about the burdens they impose on the law-abiding; but liberals are happy, even eager, to take guns from the law-abiding.

    Comment by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) — January 24, 2013 @ 8:44 pm - January 24, 2013

  34. You know, any liberals who trust the Government with a monopoly on the use of firearms should visit an Indian reservation and see how well that worked out for them.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 9:29 pm - January 24, 2013

  35. Susan, your comment # 15 is disgusting. Calling Obama’s mom a whore is a new low for the internet and you ma’am need a strong lesson in manners.

    - To the subject of this post – I think this is kind of interesting idea, thanks for highlighting it. In his case, yes you can see he has seen that a person’s mistake has far reaching ramifications. And society needs to have a mechanism to assist those effected by that individual. In his case those mistakes resulted in him needing scholarship money, being a burden to his grandparents and he pulled himself up with the assistance of tools that the greater “collective” provides to people in his situation.

    So he has seen the good of “the collective” and knows that it can provide benefits to the rest of the society. Couple his experiences as a youngster to a young man living in the NE, and Chicago and he came to a conclusion that many other city residents do, you need some kind of collective to run a society. And in every case, any decision by the collective will “disempower” the individual. Disempowerment is the choice that all humans make when being part of the society.

    Comment by mike — January 25, 2013 @ 1:42 am - January 25, 2013

  36. Funny how the left has been trotting out Reagan’s gun control positions. Does that mean they will now embrace his other policies since he was so wise?

    Comment by Chris H — January 25, 2013 @ 2:01 am - January 25, 2013

  37. Calling Obama’s mom a whore is a new low for the internet

    Apparently, faux outrage concern troll was in a cave on Mars with both fingers in his ears while his partisans were tearing into Sarah Palin and her family.

    Comment by V the K — January 25, 2013 @ 7:48 am - January 25, 2013

  38. [Deleted at the commentor's request. I thought this comment was OK, but he felt it was a bit too testy. --Jeff]

    Comment by heliotrope — January 25, 2013 @ 8:57 am - January 25, 2013

  39. I would like be able to choose not to be disempowered.

    Comment by V the K — January 25, 2013 @ 9:29 am - January 25, 2013

  40. disempowered, disemboweled, it is all the same ……

    Now shut up and pay up.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 25, 2013 @ 10:16 am - January 25, 2013

  41. I’m just a powerless vassal of the state; and I’m OK with that.

    Comment by Average Democrat — January 25, 2013 @ 10:44 am - January 25, 2013

  42. Susan, your comment # 15 is disgusting. Calling Obama’s mom a whore is a new low for the internet and you ma’am need a strong lesson in manners.

    Comment by mike — January 25, 2013 @ 1:42 am – January 25, 2013

    Now watch as we prove what a screaming, bawling hypocrite the lying concern-troll and Obama Party puppet mike is.

    “Alan Grayson Calls a Whore a Whore”

    In a private conversation inadvertently captured by voicemail, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jerry Brown or one of his associates can be heard referring to his Republican opponent Meg Whitman as a “whore,” saying she cut a deal protecting law enforcement pensions while the two candidates competed for police endorsements.

    And then: “California NOW President: ‘Meg Whitman Could Be Described As A Political Whore’”

    All of these statements were fully endorsed and supported by Barack Obama and the Barack Obama Party, both of which mike votes for and which mike constantly holds up as an example of good behavior.

    Your lies don’t work, concern-troll mike. You and your fellow liberal pigs call conservative and other women whores constantly. You’re simply trying to apply to others rules that you yourself won’t follow.

    And since your pattern is to run away when you’re exposed, you are now going to have this link showing how you support and endorse calling women whores while screaming at others posted after every single comment you make here until you condemn your Barack Obama and your Barack Obama Party for calling women whores, state that they are the lowest of the low, and say that they need lessons in manners.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 25, 2013 @ 11:52 am - January 25, 2013

  43. Susan, your comment # 15 is disgusting. Calling Obama’s mom a whore is a new low for the internet and you ma’am need a strong lesson in manners.

    Comment by mike — January 25, 2013 @ 1:42 am – January 25, 2013

    And let us prove once again what a screaming, bawling hypocrite Obama supporter and Obama Party member mike is by posting examples of how calling women whores and other names is fully endorsed and supported by Barack Obama and the Obama Party.

    Such as Obama Party and LGBT spokesperson Kathy Griffin, also a GLAAD and HRC award-winner, calling conservative women whores.

    And Obama Party leader and donor Bill Maher, as well as numerous Obama voters and supporters.

    Your lies don’t work, concern-troll mike. You and your fellow liberal pigs call conservative and other women whores constantly. You’re simply trying to apply to others rules that you yourself won’t follow.

    And since your pattern is to run away when you’re exposed, you are now going to have this link showing how you support and endorse calling women whores while screaming at others posted after every single comment you make here until you condemn your Barack Obama and your Barack Obama Party for calling women whores, state that they are the lowest of the low, and say that they need lessons in manners.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 25, 2013 @ 12:00 pm - January 25, 2013

  44. Funny how the left has been trotting out Reagan’s gun control positions. Does that mean they will now embrace his other policies since he was so wise?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….that’s a good one. I’ll be laughing about that all day. Also, you owe me a new keyboard.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — January 25, 2013 @ 1:12 pm - January 25, 2013

  45. I don’t get it, ILC. So Obama’s been holding this grudge his whole life, since he was a child, according to Ablow. Then he becomes President and…. doesn’t do anything about gun control for the duration of his first term. There were a number of shootings throughout his first term, about which he did nothing. He only did anything after Sandy Hook, which is clearly the most gut-wrenching in this class of tragedies.

    So how’s this for a psychoanalysis? Obama didn’t do anything about gun control during his first term until an especially horrifying shooting took place. There were other horrific shootings during his first term that he could have seized upon to change the laws, but he didn’t. I think it’s pretty safe to say that the guy had an epiphany and was stirred from his inaction by one of the most depraved acts of violence anyone could imagine.

    This alternative theory of Ablow’s is dumber than shit. What does Ablow know about Obama as a kid? Has the guy ever met Obama? He’s got an already-arrived-at conclusion (Obama The Soul-Crushing Dictator) and then plagiarized a cliched comic book backstory, that’s all.

    If he’s been hellbent on disempowering the individual since he was a child, why did he let so many opportunities to ram through gun control go by? Was he waiting for Sandy Hook? What if it never came? If you’re a wannabe dictator that wants to crush dissent and the ability of the citizenry to resist, wouldn’t taking everybody’s guns be something you try to do as early as possible? The proposed legislation is pretty tame anyway, is tameness something you usually associate with radical revolutionaries orchestrating a power grab?

    I’ll admit to not knowing Obama either, but I’m at least basing my psychoanalysis on his record as President and an understanding of human emotions. Sometimes people allow problems to fester for too long and can only get motivated by a shock to the system. Most people should be able to relate to that experience, either with Sandy Hook itself, or even some minor annoyance in your daily lives. This explanation makes a lot more sense and requires far fewer assumptions than Ablow’s wildly speculative conspiracy theory.

    Comment by Levi — January 25, 2013 @ 1:13 pm - January 25, 2013

  46. Calling Obama’s mom a whore is a new low for the internet

    LOL. That is apparently worse than wishing death on George H.W. Bush or threatening to murder Mitt Romney.

    So he has seen the good of “the collective” and knows that it can provide benefits to the rest of the society. Couple his experiences as a youngster to a young man living in the NE, and Chicago and he came to a conclusion that many other city residents do, you need some kind of collective to run a society. And in every case, any decision by the collective will “disempower” the individual. Disempowerment is the choice that all humans make when being part of the society.

    You call yourself a fiscal conservative? Jesus.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 25, 2013 @ 1:20 pm - January 25, 2013


  47. Having read Levi’s blog (#45), I will agree with him on one thing: psychoanalysis of Barrack Hussein Obama based on a childhood only Obama himself has provided (with embellishments, I’m sure) is not the best idea. But you can sure get a lot out of what you see right in front of you when Levi talks. I won’t argue with a guy like that; such people tell you the “hows” and “whys” without even having to ask.

    Comment by Douglas — January 25, 2013 @ 2:48 pm - January 25, 2013

  48. …..but I’m at least basing my psychoanalysis on his record as President and an understanding of human emotions.

    BwaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Thelittlefascist does psychoanalysis using his Wii or X-box or reading his weed. Does this guy ever reach the vicinity of his shamelessness?

    “What difference does it make” what thelittlefascist’s psychoanalysis is? Why isn’t he explaining Benghazi to us or how the cow jumped over the moon or why he can’t will his bellybutton to untie itself?

    Comment by heliotrope — January 25, 2013 @ 4:12 pm - January 25, 2013

  49. Calling Obama’s mom a whore is a new low

    I couldn’t say. Firstly, as to the substance of susan’s assertion: I would have to understand (a) what definition of “whore” susan is working with, and then (b) particulars of Obama’s mom’s life (how much they match susan’s definition). I have never seen evidence that Obama’s mom was literally a streetwalker, but I also doubt that susan meant it so literally. Secondly: I do know that Sarah Palin, and her underage daughters, have been the targets of worse insults on the Internet than that; for example, in the ravings of Andrew Sullivan, a known Internet personality who has persistently planted false rumors of them engaging in severely fraudulent acts.

    [Obama] has seen that a person’s mistake has far reaching ramifications. And society needs to have a mechanism to assist those effected by that individual. In his case those mistakes resulted in him needing scholarship money, being a burden to his grandparents and he pulled himself up with the assistance of tools that the greater “collective” provides to people in his situation.

    Even taking that at face value, it still doesn’t explain the depth and consistency of Obama’s determination to empower the State. Safety nets need not be provided by government. And the very fact that Obama is alive is proof that our society had adequate safety nets for him (government-provided or not).

    So he has seen the good of “the collective” and knows that it can provide benefits to the rest of the society.

    That’s difficult to make sense of. It implies a “collective” which is not “society”, and which rules over and above society. The only other sensible meaning is if you were talking about government, as in “Obama has seen the good of government and knows that it can provide benefits to the rest of society.” But then the statement says little. I myself frequently talk about government’s role in providing society with impartial protection of individual rights to life, liberty and property. Long story short: the statement still doesn’t explain the depth and consistency of Obama’s determination to enlarge government’s already-too-large role in American life.

    any decision by the collective will “disempower” the individual. Disempowerment is the choice that all humans make when being part of the society.

    That’s a revealing position. I disagree with the latter half, profoundly.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 25, 2013 @ 4:23 pm - January 25, 2013

  50. Somewhat related to the topic: the Russian “Duma” has just given near-unanimous[*] preliminary approval to a bill that, if eventually passed, would ban “dissemination of homosexual propaganda to minors”.

    Suffice to say the wording of the bill is vague enough that it could be seriously corrosive to the free speech of LGBT Russians (not to mention gay-sympathetic medical professionals, etc.), assuming that it actually becomes law, and assuming that it’s actually enforced.

    Of course, it may turn out to be merely a token dog-biscuit thrown to the crazy-fundie wing of the Orthodox Church — with Russia, it can be hard to tell.

    But it certainly offers a caution against an empowered State!

    * 388 out of 390 deputies voted “da” — with one abstaining, and exactly one “nyet”.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — January 25, 2013 @ 5:51 pm - January 25, 2013

  51. P.S. Note that the “Duma” is the lower house of the Russian Parliament — thus, like the U.S. House of Representatives, it often acts with less restraint than the upper chamber.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — January 25, 2013 @ 5:54 pm - January 25, 2013

  52. Of course, it may turn out to be merely a token dog-biscuit thrown to the crazy-fundie wing. . .roflmao

    Comment by rusty — January 25, 2013 @ 7:52 pm - January 25, 2013

  53. Please delete my comments at #26 and #38 as they could be offensive in tone.

    Thank you.

    Heliotrope.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 26, 2013 @ 10:34 am - January 26, 2013

  54. Do not delete 26 and 38, because they are spot on.

    Regarding Obama, his childhood is a component. Bitter, angry, little boy, who was not only abandoned by his bitter, angry, commie parents, but whose mentors, who took him under their wing, were also bitter, angry, communists. He never saw or heard anything but. Reinforced with never having to work hard for anything throughout his adult life (affirmative action), never being challenged. He thinks everything grows on trees and all one has to do do is own the tree, pluck the fruit, and hand it out to those he must pay back.

    Comment by Annie — January 26, 2013 @ 2:00 pm - January 26, 2013

  55. Do not delete 26 and 38, because they are spot on.

    I thought so, too. Also, for the record, I’m not sure I know how to delete comments; when you want an action like that, the action more likely to get a result is if you send Dan/Bruce a private e-mail.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 26, 2013 @ 2:40 pm - January 26, 2013

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.167 Powered by Wordpress