Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: How the White House Scandals have altered the gun control debate. H/T John R. Lott

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,152

    How the White House Scandals have altered the gun control debate. H/T John R. Lott

    Why can’t we have background checks?
    Roll tape.

    Cruz: “I believe it would put us inexorably on the path to a national gun registry."

    Stewart: “Oh, right, a national gun registry. And the government is going to overreach and there’s going to be a registry. And the government’s even capable of that kind of overreach. And they’re going to take your guns away from you.”

    CBS news report: “The Internal Revenue Service admitted today that some of its employees targeted conservative political groups.”

    Stewart: “Mother****ers! This has, in one seismic moment, shifted the burden of proof from the tin-foil-behatted [conservatives] to the government."
    http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/0...red.html#links
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Not only do these scandals lend credence to the idea that the federal government cannot be trusted, but they also consume time and goodwill. The gun haters will be that much less likely to get what they want now that the federal government has been exposed and Republicans in Congress are less likely to cave. They didn't get their way before all of this came out, so I doubt that they will get their way any time soon.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,152
    A pithy comment on Lott's blog is to the effect that the controllers can't win for having shot themselves in the foot. Continuing the gun analogy, yes but they are using a large capacity magazine and will continue shooting, and reloading, regardless of the collateral damage to the innocents.

    One wonders if at some point the unintended consequences, of collateral damage, aren't so unintended. I'm sure that they just want to go home at the end of their shift/term.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    No tinfoil was ever needed to think that the government might overstep its bounds and do something unlawful that it was given the power, but not the permission to do! Those in power have repeatedly overstepped their bounds and had to be slapped down. It will happen. This IRS thing is merely that latest example (and unsurprising, considering the nixonian nature of the current administration).

    We have only two choices: Remove from government the power to overstep. Or slap it down when it does overstep. I prefer the first option. In this case, it means zero background checks, not even the ones already in place. In order to use the second option, someone has to be hurt by the overstep and then take the government to court. Prior restraint may be taboo when used against the media, but it is the only way to go when trying to keep government in check!

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Reread the bolded part. It has nothing to do with WHO is in power. It is advocating for the removal of even existing background checks, making it impossible to use background checks for a de facto registration scheme--i.e. removing the power to overstep in this particular way.

    My post had zero to do with removing the government.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •