Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

[texas1234]

Yes crazy as a fox brilliant. I actually wrote that in my second post on this subject. Obama's regulatory Czar Cass Sunstien also wants to provide lawers for animals. You can read how this will work from our good friends in Sweden. If animals can have lawyers paid for by the government, arent they entitled to healthcare, and a safe gun free living environment.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... b_page_one

[UpTheIrons]

Mark there is no question he is not a moron. Obama is brilliant!

No, Obama is NOT stupid. Frustrated and angry that not everyone is still on the bandwagon, but by no means stupid. Remember what he said just before the election? "We are five days away from FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING this country!"

Most of the hangers-on thought that meant nebulous 'hope' and 'change' that wasn't from the R's. Those who looked more closely then (and now) realize that he meant to fundamentally change the structure of the nation to fit his vision:

Reparations for slavery are a no-go, because they don't go far enough.
This leads to: Wealth redistribution, because it is the only way to be 'fair.' (Joe the Plumber discussion)
Single-payer (gov't run) health care is the eventual goal, but can't be the first step because it will be "ten or fifteen years before we can eliminate private insurance." (Said while he was still a senator [or was he still a state senator then?])
All guns must be taken away from individuals. (No quotes handy, but there are plenty of them out there).

There are a lot more things he's said/pledged/promised. Remember that he's like a magician. Sleight of hand is the rule. If you watch the right hand too much, the left one will have free reign to wreak all sorts of havoc (Czars, regulations, etc.).

[marksiwel]

Mark there is no question he is not a moron. Obama is brilliant!

No, Obama is NOT stupid. Frustrated and angry that not everyone is still on the bandwagon, but by no means stupid. Remember what he said just before the election? "We are five days away from FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING this country!"

Most of the hangers-on thought that meant nebulous 'hope' and 'change' that wasn't from the R's. Those who looked more closely then (and now) realize that he meant to fundamentally change the structure of the nation to fit his vision:

Reparations for slavery are a no-go, because they don't go far enough.
This leads to: Wealth redistribution, because it is the only way to be 'fair.' (Joe the Plumber discussion)
Single-payer (gov't run) health care is the eventual goal, but can't be the first step because it will be "ten or fifteen years before we can eliminate private insurance." (Said while he was still a senator [or was he still a state senator then?])
All guns must be taken away from individuals. (No quotes handy, but there are plenty of them out there).

There are a lot more things he's said/pledged/promised. Remember that he's like a magician. Sleight of hand is the rule. If you watch the right hand too much, the left one will have free reign to wreak all sorts of havoc (Czars, regulations, etc.).

Did Obama ever support Slave Reparations? His was not a decedent of slaves
Wealth redistribution? Care to post a link?

Transforming a Country? Why is that a bad thing?

[Dragonfighter]

Mark there is no question he is not a moron. Obama is brilliant!

No, Obama is NOT stupid. Frustrated and angry that not everyone is still on the bandwagon, but by no means stupid. Remember what he said just before the election? "We are five days away from FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING this country!"

<SNIP>

1. Did Obama ever support Slave Reparations? His was not a decedent of slaves

2. Wealth redistribution? Care to post a link?

3. Transforming a Country? Why is that a bad thing?

(numbered for reference)

1. Yes, he did, does, will or not...depending which day you pull from in his career. Being alive I don't think he's a decedent of anything, but a descendant That is something of a red herring at any rate since there might be a handful of people who's great grandparents were descendant of slaves but they would be rare if extant at all. It would be likened to me getting reparations from the queen of England for the subjugation of Ireland by Charles I.

2. Post a link on wealth redistribution? Are you serious? He is admittedly a progressive. The difference between a progressive and a Marxist is evolution not revolution. All through his campaign, he talked about raising taxes on those that make $250K or more a year. When confronted on national television by "Joe the Plumber" he said it was fair to take money from those that have more than they need and give it to those that don't have enough. The number of examples are literally countless.

3. Well that depends a whole lot on what kind of "change" we're talking about. If it is the restoration of a Constituitional government, personal liberty, self responsibility, yadah yadah, then by all means. Let's get back to where we once belonged. But the stated goal of the progressive movement is to establish an unlimited government that is "responsible" for all aspects of its subjects, er citizens.

Starting with establishment of a government run health care system, you now have health care decisions including end of life decisions in the hands of committees made up of bureaucrats. The insurance companies that are "allowed" to stay in business can not compete and will either disappear or become confined to a more exclusive market, I.E. the "elite". This is what has happened to the private insurance companies that are "still" in existence in England and Canada.

A state run health care system has a different economic model, they want you off the dole as opposed to a pharmaceutical model where it is more lucrative to keep you taking medicines. The upside to this has been the discovery of how wide spread and how many diseases stem from Celiac Sprue; the downside is the advent of exclusions based on personal habits and stage in life. Waiting for life saving treatment becomes the norm, decisions to not treat based on prognosis commonplace. This has all happened, all one has to do is look around.

How would they control weight, freedom and guns? Like they have elsewhere. You eat too much? Guess what, no more diabetic treatments for you. They can't have individuals responsible for their own treatment options, so naturopathy, homeopathy and herbal remedies are gone, probably squeezed out or outlawed all together. Others have already pointed to a multitude of JAMA, CDC et al material that labels "gun violence" as a disease and a preemptive public health issue. What kind of controls do you think could/would be in place if the government was the sole (or controlling) provider for health care.

And the final straw in my book is this. We have a 10 trillion dollar debt, 1.6 deficit this year WITHOUT a health care bill. We have reached the limits on our credit card (China, etc.) and we are looking to Europe for the global economic model (don't ask for links, there's Google and CSpan). What better way to ultimately control your subjects than completely destroy the monetary standard and then adopt one that you have created.

The progressives have been emboldened which has the advantage of bringing them out in the open. The party system itself is a thin disguise as both parties have been infiltrated by progressives and as Jefferson said, the party system will destroy this country.

[marksiwel]

Starting with establishment of a government run health care system, you now have health care decisions including end of life decisions in the hands of committees made up of bureaucrats. .

You mean like how End of Life care isnt decided by Bureaucrats in your Insurance company?

[UpTheIrons]

Thanks, Dragonfighter. I've been a bit under the weather this evening and just checked back in.

The problem with "fundamentally changing" the country is that Obama has implied (through the examples above and with suggested legislation) that the representative republic is no longer a viable way of governing. I know Bush 43 had tons of appointed czars, just like Obama, but I didn't agree with him either, after his 2nd year in office. The czars are just one cog in the machine that slowly (evolution, not revolution) changes the thrust of the power vectors (for lack of a better term) of the governed and those who govern.

Right now, in theory, we are in charge. We tell our representatives what to do, and if they don't, we vote them out. Obama is moving to a governing-by-appointees paradigm. OSHA wanting to redefine health and safety to include firearm regulation. It doesn't matter who you elect once these governmental departments start regulating - then it becomes institutional. Here are 2 links on the OSHA nominee. They are from last year, but they illustrate the point of what Obama is trying to do:
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/08/17/os ... e-peddler/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-sh ... be-stopped" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's a link that says why he's against reparations: because once they are paid, then some will say "we've paid our debt" and not do any more: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... ?id=483402" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It then explains why nationalized health care is an expansion on the idea of reparations. It doesn't matter if he is descended from a slave family or not, what matters is the constituency that wants to hear about reparations. I think it also begins to cover your questions on wealth redistribution.

Back to transforming the country. I have gotten over my Glenn Beck fever, but he did make some very good points not too long ago about progressives, and Obama has self-identified himself as one (about 7 paragraphs down in this article, which may also answer some of your other questions): http://www.progressive.org/mag/nichols0109.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One doesn't need to amend the constitution to get one's way - one can regulate things out of existence. Did you see the article concerning public fishing and how it may go away because of a federal Task Force? http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/salt ... id=4975762" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(It may be a bit alarmist, but you know what they say about the camel's nose in the tent.)

This is what I mean by being wary of Obama's pledge of "fundamentally transforming the country". Once power is out of the hands of the elected (and the electorate, by extension) decisions are made by the faceless bureaucrats, and there is nothing you can do about it. Ever fought with the people on the phone at a credit card company? National bank? Student loan company? "I'm sorry, that's just the way it is." Get ready for that response to all your questions about why you can no longer buy a firearm, since the National Health Care Agency in Charge of Your Health has deemed them to be a health hazard. Sure, Amendment #2 is still there, but it is rendered meaningless by governmental fiat.

And yes, end-of-life decisions are made now by the faceless bureaucrats in our insurance companies, but if we were given the option to buy insurance across state lines, we may get away from that by increased competition. There is no option once the government becomes the single-payer in the health care system. If I don't like my provider, I can change to another one. Sure, it may cost more, but so does a home in a nicer neighborhood, or a Noveske over a DPMS. It is all about tradeoffs, and I don't want the government telling me what my (one) option is, I want to decide from a menu of options.

If you want, I'll dig for some more stuff tomorrow, but I think this gives you a few answers to the questions you posed above.

[UpTheIrons]

As a quick follow up on the "fundamentally transforming this country" comment, did you hear/read what House Speaker Pelosi said the new health care bill is about: "It is about diet, not diabetes." Blurb here:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/09/nancy ... th-care-we" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Full text of her comments here:
http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which include this gem TAM posted yesterday:
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 15#p380262" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Declaration of Independence states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

What part of "Liberty" involves Mr. Government Health Person telling me what I can or cannot do for dinner? If I want to have a 24 oz. rare Ribeye with a wedge salad drenched in ranch with real bacon bits and sharp cheddar cheese on it and a football sized baked potato every Friday, it is not the business of the government. I will suffer the consequences for that, and I will pay higher premiums because of my behavior. Unless I do what is necessary to keep from ballooning up to a size that is grotesque in the eyes of others. But then again, if that is MY definition of Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, what's it to ya?

The same goes for the gun issue (to get back on topic). I don't think any of us want to be told how many guns of what type you can buy or own and when you can buy or own them. Transforming from a 'bottom up' government model (which a representative republic is, in theory) to a top down autocratic progressive model is completely antithetical to what both the Declaration and the Constitution proclaim. Now, if the majority of the governed decide that's what they want, let's amend the Constitution to reflect that. Otherwise, keep yer filthy hands outta my pocket and off my guns.

At least, that's what I'm thinking this morning.