YouTube

Speculation, not conspiracy. "...conspiracy until it happens..." No. A conspiracy is a conspiracy, whether it is being planned, has happened, is happening, or will happen.

What you're describing here is speculation. Do you honestly believe that a president and his or her congress (plus the supreme court) would allow such radical changes in america? Confiscation of firearms? The second CONSITUTIONAL AMENDMENT guarantees the right to bear arms. Do you REALLY think they're going to amend the constitution over guns? No chance.

 

While I am no conspiracy theorist, the way government circumvents laws and the constitution is just by making a new law or rule. They don't dare try and change the constitution, just make it null and void whenever they see fit. A new law to override the old law. New laws to make things either way too difficult to exercise your rights or to make them illegal all together. But like I have said in the past...It is not the government who is taking away our rights, it's us the people who have been giving them away.

 

gah! was cruising thru forums this morning and came across you guys here and just had to post! could not resist on this one.

Being in a household that is extremely gun friendly (they are all locked up, but all of us, including the children, know how to use them) this discussion has come up alot over recent weeks.

They are trying to pass serialization of bullets in several states, meaning that each bullet has a number and when you buy a box you are now responsible for all of them bullet shells.. (make sure they are all accounted for so someone does not take it and reload it). They are trying to pass a law where gun manufactures have to put a micro coding into your gun so when it fires the firing pin puts a stamped number onto your bullet. Anyone who does alot of shooting can tell you, the price of bullets has gone up almost 50% in the last year and that price is not expected to decline. (any of you investment types might want to look to investing in lead... lol as it is going up faster than the stock market) They dont have to outlaw our guns, they will just make it so that the price to shoot them is so rediculous no one can afford it. the price of guns goes up, the price of ammo goes up. They know they cant outlaw guns, so they are looking into ways around it. If all bullets have to be serialized, then those of us with ammo that is not should turn it in (for nothing of course) otherwise we will be in violation.. i believe they want to make it a misdemeaner or some such b*s*. Anyways, Chuck does have a very valid point.

I have to laugh, my mother and i were talking a few months ago, she said that back in the day when she was going to school, they were REQUIRED to take a hunters safety course, and they had to all bring in their OWN guns from home. of course these days our children have no idea how to handle guns and are fascinated by them as they are using them for the wrong reasons because they are not educated.

Chuck is correct that the gun owners are stocking up on ammuntion and guns now, before the next president is elected. even the talk in the gun shops is the same. Its kinda sad that comes to this. As a family we enjoy shooting. we enjoy going out together and plinking quite a bit.

how many people get behind cars and kill others every day?? should we outlaw cars? after all, its for the children right??

 

Were I a betting man, I'd bet against you on that one. Too much money tied up in it for them to try (politicians who kill off big revenue streams worry big donors who like their own big revenue streams), not to mention the Constitutional issues. That alone wouldn't entirely stop them, but there just isn't the uproar about YouTube among enough constituents for them to be risking their re-election chances by not doing anything.

What you saw on the news was most likely just something they threw together for a slow news day. It reminds me of a hilarious piece about iPods that I saw when those started to get popular. The entire premise of the thing was that iPods were more likely to cause hearing damage because the volume control goes to 40 instead of 10 on the old Sony Walkman, never mind that the numbers are completely arbitrary, and the actual sound pressure level depends on the peak voltage of the input signal, the operating class and output power of the amplifier, the type of power transistors used, and the efficiency of the headphones used. I dislike those emotionally-charged "for the children" pieces as much as you seem to, but we're past the time when they could be used to influence public policy in any significant way -- and that's a good thing.

You're quite incorrect here. First, I have no idea where the perception that John McCain is a closet Democrat comes from. I know that the complaint among "conservatives" is that he bucked the party line on tax cuts (He doesn't want to cut taxes and increase spending at the same time! The horror!), immigration (What, he doesn't want to deport every Mexican in the country?! The bastard! (Never mind the cost to put enough INS agents out there to actually deport 12 million illegal aliens -- it's just not going to happen, no matter who gets elected.)), and torture (He doesn't think we should torture people!?! The terrorist-coddling panty-waist godless sodomite LIBERAL!!!). Personally, I consider all of these disagreements from the party positives in McCain's favor. However, on every other current issue, he's a straight party-line Republican. He's pro life, pro corporate welfare, pro free trade (I like this), pro gun, has an absolutely terrible record on other civil rights -- one of the worst in Congress actually, he's pro privatizing Social Security (I like this as well), pro Iraq war, pro PATRIOT act, I could go on. Bottom line, he's not quite as much of a fascist as the average Republican has become, but he's close. Huckabee and Paul actually much more liberal and much closer to the Democratic front-runners. Fascist tendencies in the Republican Party (or the pre-civil-rights-era Democratic Party, for that matter) are nothing new, of course; Republican administrations have been planning to dismantle the Constitution in favor of a fascist dictatorship and maintaining lists of known liberals and intellectuals to throw into detainment camps since the Nixon years -- hell, Nixon came pretty close to actually doing it. They've been unusually forthright about their authoritarian tendencies over the past few years, though, and I've had it with the party for that reason. I initially supported Paul, as he's very close to what I want in a candidate, and I could live with Huckabee, but given that McCain is going to win the Republican nomination, I'm supporting Obama. His particular voting record is straight party-line nonsense, and while I disagree with at least two-thirds of it, it's not particularly dangerous for the country or Constitution.

Second, don't worry about firearm confiscation under any of the candidates, Republican or Democrat. The one redeeming value of the current Republican party is that they are very supportive of the Second Amendment. They do it for the wrong reasons, I think, but it's the result that counts. And, the Democratic party has pretty much figured out that gun control was losing votes and elections for them, so they're mostly supportive of the Second Amendment as well. Be vigilant on the issue for sure (I think it's admirable that you are), but I don't think there's anything to worry about for the foreseeable future.

I don't know anything about the Salvia plant, though I agree with you completely here on the role of the Federal Government.

 

While I think that what you are describing here is bad law from the perspective that most laws are bad; that it's a solution looking for a problem, I think it would be constitutional. It's not a restriction on your right to bear arms, it's a restriction on bullet manufacturers. The constitution doesn't say that you have the right to bear arms at a certain price point, just that you have the right to bear arms. Not that I support it, as I don't support any laws which restrict behavior that doesn't directly impact another person negatively, but it's not the same thing that Chuk is talking about.

 

it ties into the point that they are not able to take it away, they know this, they are looking for ways around it though. that is the point i was trying to make so you did get it *winks*

 

I just skimed all of this cause if I took the time to read it all "they" would catch me! .. Sure everyone thought I was silly when I made my tin foil line armadillo hat, but just you wait!!

 

I think most people would APPRECIATE it if the government killed MySpace.... ugh.

 

Please do. MySpace is the root of all evil, but everyone already knows that.

BTW, direct your attention over to Break.com for some true proof that MySpace is pure and total evil.

 

I could actually see "for the children" regulation on MySpace happening, though I think it's still unlikely, as I think they're self-policing lately.

I don't think the site is evil, though, it's just a social-networking site. It would have to be the site's users who make it evil. Though, as I don't have an account there, I take no offense to such a description.

 

When I refer to Ron Paul as liberal, I mean it in the traditional sense, "favoring individual freedom". Hell, I supported his Presidential run until it became apparent that there was mathematically no point in continuing to do so. When I use the words 'liberal' and 'conservative', I don't mean 'Democratic' or 'Republican'. 'Liberal', as mentioned above, means "favoring individual freedom", and 'conservative' means "disfavoring change". The two are not even mutually exclusive. 'Liberal' also certainly doesn't mean "anti-constitution", the Constitution is actually quite a liberal document. Given the Republican Party over the past few years, one could argue that the terms 'Republican' and 'anti-constitution' are interchangeable. We Republicans need to work on that.

So, from now on, when I use the words 'liberal' and 'conservative', I mean the above. I will use the term 'Democrat' to refer to godless pierced-nose gay-marrying vegetarian tree-hugging race-baiting baby-hating Europe-worshiping drug-legalizing draft-dodging hodge-podging Volvo-driving weak-kneed pants-peed tofu-chomping latte-sipping religion-whipping no-drilling-in-Alaska-voting no-borders-supporting misguided-well-intentioned idiots. I will use the term 'Republican' to refer to ignorant racist fascist knuckle-dragging country-music-listening Nascar-obsessed cousin-marrying road-kill-eating tobacco-juice-dribbling gun-fondling homophobic xenophobic Islamophobic extreme right-wing religious fanatic rednecks. That should piss off everyone pretty much equally.

 

I guess that's a reasonably good way to differentiate the two in practice, though you can surely understand the confusion, with the word 'liberty' being the root word behind both of the words 'liberal' and 'libertarian'.

Though, with that definition of 'liberal', now I'm wondering why Republicans are always bashing so-called liberals. Republicans have presided over the largest Federal tax increases and budget deficits over the past thirty years, which certainly sounds like "liberal with other people's money", and issues like the pro-life abortion stance and the anti-gay-marriage stance, for example, certainly involve the government running people's lives, in that the Republican stance is that the government should dictate that people cannot have abortions or gay marriages. Now, I don't want to get into an abortion or gay marriage debate, as I'm not commenting on the relative correctness of those stances, just pointing out that they do indeed involve government control over individuals. Not that there are not Democratic positions that don't, either (gun control comes to mind), though it is pretty clear that Democrats are more fiscally responsible than Republicans. Actually, it has been said that "the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals favor the primacy of individual liberty over social order, and conservatives favor the primacy of social order over individual liberty."

None here, either. I was just having fun in the second paragraph.