My Letter To Democrats

[Lamarr]

Congratulations on your victory last week. but please don’t let the President off the hook again. You may have had to worry about his re-election, but that is no longer the case. While many of us agree that he was far better than the alternative, there is no longer a need to support the bad policies for which he is responsible.

If you support him because of personal freedoms, you will find many friends in our liberty movement. If you dislike crony-capitalism, I guarantee you we have much in common!

But if you dislike what he has done with respects to indefinite detention, secret kill lists, drone warfare, and foreign intervention, don’t let him off the hook! You wouldn’t support a Republican doing this, don’t support a Democrat doing this.

The liberty movement is about seeing through the left/right paradigm to discuss the real issues without partisanship. We have an opportunity here to forge an alliance to remove the bad policies that both parties are promoting. I understand that our view of economics may be hard to grasp initially – many of us have had to make this difficult journey of understanding. But we agree on so much, we shouldn’t let these differences divide us.

The political parties on both sides use these minor differences to divide us against each other. And they are quite successful. Now that the election is over, I urge you to seek our input on our points of agreement and try to keep an open mind about how to achieve our mutual goals. Now is the time to remove the partisan blinders and tell these politicians that they may no longer divide us for their own political advantage.

For Liberty!

 

[Greed]

Lamar, why don't you think the country is too far gone.

 

[thoughtone]

For Liberty!

Al always liberty, never justice!

 

[thoughtone]

Lamar, why don't you think the country is too far gone.

If you think that, you can always move.

 

[Lamarr]

Lamar, why don't you think the country is too far gone.

Just being optimistic and trying to "practice what I preach". When citizens are fully informed, I put my trust in the American people, not the govt, whether the issue is economics, foreign or domestic policy. We shouldn't be afraid to hold this administration accountable through honest dialog because from this scrutiny, comes understanding.

 

[Greed]

So you feel people were not aware of the things you cited?

I think you should admit that the government is completely reflective of the American people already.

This is the America they wanted. Acknowledge their efforts an how hard they've work to get here.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

So you feel people were not aware of the things you cited?

I think you should admit that the government is completely reflective of the American people already.This is the America they wanted. Acknowledge their efforts an how hard they've work to get here.

You know what, I agree.

 

[QueEx]

. . . being optimistic and trying to "practice what I preach". When citizens are fully informed, I put my trust in the American people, not the govt, whether the issue is economics, foreign or domestic policy.

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx" WIDTH=760 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx">link</A>

</IFRAME>

 

[Lamarr]

You almost had me QueEx; I still put my trust in the American people when they are fully informed, not "brainwashed" as Holder was conspiring since 1995.

When citizens are fully informed, I put my trust in the American people, not the govt, whether the issue is economics, foreign or domestic policy.

"We need to do this every day of the week, and really "brainwash" people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way" - Eric Holder (1995)

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gYyqBxD-3xw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[QueEx]

You almost had me QueEx; I still put my trust in the American people when they are fully informed, not "brainwashed" as Holder was conspiring since 1995.

Yep, had you. Before you decided to add a "qualification" i.e., "Fully Informed" -- such that you only trust the people when they are "fully informed" -- trouble is, you're doing the defining and it does say Hanes until YOU say it says Hanes, if you get my metaphor.

It appears you only trust the people when they agree with your version of reality . . .

"We need to do this every day of the week, and really "brainwash" people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way" - Eric Holder (1995)

I don't know what to say, but . . . (1) I agree with what Holder was saying and I believe that most honest Americans with average comprehension would agree, as well (it would be beneficial if we could change the way our youth view guns and violence); and (2) your seizing upon a word (brainwashing), out-of-context, indicates that you care more about trying to win an argument, than about the future of our youth.

 

[thoughtone]

You almost had me QueEx; I still put my trust in the American people when they are fully informed, not "brainwashed"

the NRA is a compromise organization

Not the NRA. No, what they suggest is government-trained, government-licensed, government-armed and government-paid security. Fiscal conservatives, you do understand this type of response grows the size & scope of govt, which you claim you despise every election cycle? NRA = Big Government

 

[QueEx]

You almost had me QueEx; I still put my trust in the American people when they are fully informed, not "brainwashed" as Holder was conspiring since 1995.

Well Lamar, you've been spewing your version of the "Libertarian" anti-regulation message "Educating the People" for 4 months now. Lets see the result of your "Fully Informing" the American people . . .

April 1, 2013

Public Opinion Strong
Lawmakers Weak

As the Senate prepares to bring gun control legislation to a vote this month, lawmakers seem divided over universal background checks–a proposal that recent polling shows has strong public backing. According to a Quinnipiac poll released last Thursday, 92% of voters–including 91% of gun-owning households–support universal background checks.

Good job !!!

 

[Lamarr]

Don't fully grasp your point. They conduct background searches now. Everytime I've made a purchase, they've done a background check.

 

[thoughtone]

Don't fully grasp your point. They conduct background searches now. Everytime I've made a purchase, they've done a background check.

Those background checks are inadequate. Thanks to your your gun loving politicians, the government, specifically, the federal government has been effectively neutered in applying real gun laws.


source: The Hill

Government can improve gun records

The word “possible” in the old political axiom that “politics is the art of the possible” hardly seems to apply to the gun debate. Despite calls for action after last month’s horrible school shooting in Connecticut, political cynics seem to have it right when they opine that not much, if anything, is likely to change. After all, haven’t we seen this movie before after similar shootings?

This time, though, the cynics might be wrong. Here’s why.

Notable changes in national gun policy have occurred infrequently, but when they have, they’ve come in the aftermath of shocking gun-related events that upended conventional politics. The first modern national gun-control law, the National Firearms Act of 1934, was the culmination of an orgy of gang violence that riveted the nation’s attention. (Bonnie and Clyde were gunned down two months before the bill’s passage; notorious gangster John Dillinger was killed a month after the law’s enactment.) The Gun Control Act of 1968 won final passage because of the escalation of urban violence and the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Kennedy. The spur to enact the 1994 assault weapons ban was founded in the killing of school children in California by a drifter using a Chinese-made assault rifle.

Admittedly, all of these actions occurred during times of unified party control. But consider another such moment: the aftermath of the 1999 Columbine shooting. Within weeks, Congress was enmeshed in consideration of a bill requiring background checks for all sales at gun show, a bar on unlicensed Internet gun sales and tougher gun crime penalties, among other provisions. Despite open hostility from the Republican leaders who controlled Congress, they yielded to public pressure — amplified by support from then-President Clinton — and brought bills to the floor of both houses. The measure passed in the Senate, but eventually lost in the House after tumultuous consideration. Republican leaders would have preferred to let the bills die quietly in committee, but yielded in the face of public outcry.

If the current divided Congress again yields to public demand for change, what measures might have some effect not only on generalized gun violence but on the kind of mass shootings that have outraged the nation? Aside from renewal of the assault weapons ban and limits on bullet magazines, other measures have received far less attention but might be more achievable and, arguably, have an even greater impact.

A 50-year study of mass shootings conducted and reported by The New York Times in 2000 found that a majority of the killers had clear histories of mental illness and gave ample warnings of the heinous crimes they were about to commit. A recent study by Mother Jones examined every mass shooting in the last 30 years and found that the killers got their guns legally about 80 percent of the time. These studies point to a gaping problem: Despite the fact that federal law bars gun sales to the mentally incompetent, and despite an effort by Congress in 2007 to improve record-keeping after the Virginia Tech shooting, the current national background check system is woefully inadequate. According to the Government Accountability Office, while the total number of mental health records submitted by states to the national system increased from 126,000 in 2004 to 1.2 million in 2011, most of that increase came from only a few states. Shockingly, 30 states provided no non-criminal records.

Changes in another record-keeping matter could also have a big effect. For years, gun-lobby pressure has quietly sought to strangle proper record-keeping and gun-data analysis, in the following ways:

• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has been barred for years from computerizing its gun-tracing information.

• Beginning in 1996, the Centers for Disease Control was barred from funding gun research.

• Since 2003, a succession of amendments has required the destruction of background-check data required for gun purchases within 24 hours (it used to be 90 days), and has restricted data access by researchers and law enforcement.

• In 2010, a provision was quietly slipped into the Affordable Care Act to restrict the ability of doctors to gather data about patients’ gun use.

• In 2012, then-Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) authored a measure to bar the National Institutes of Health from spending money to “advocate or promote gun control” — in other words, to research it.


Federal action could readily tighten all-too-easy gun access for the mentally unbalanced, just as it could reverse the tide of willful ignorance about guns that hobbles law enforcement and important research efforts. “Improve gun record-keeping” isn’t much of a political rallying cry, but it is a goal within ready legislative grasp.