Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know..and I love it...You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality-ayn rand
Explaining Liberal Thinking In A Single Column
Liberals love to think of themselves as intellectual and nuanced, but liberalism is incredibly simplistic. It’s nothing more than “childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues.” Very seldom does any issue that doesn’t involve pandering to their supporters boil down at its core level to more than feeling “nice” or “mean” to liberals. This makes liberals ill equipped to deal with complex issues.
Since liberals tend to support or oppose policies based on how those policies make them feel about themselves, they do very little intellectual examination of whether the policies they advocate work or not. That’s because it doesn’t matter to them whether the policy is effective or not; it matters whether advocating the policy makes them feel “good” or “bad,” “compassionate” or “stingy,” “nice” or “mean.”
Because of this, liberalism has more in common with religion than it does with other political ideologies like conservatism or libertarianism. Moreover, liberal beliefs are more like religious doctrine than any sort of battle-tested policies that bear up under logic or examination. Although the interpretation of the doctrine that the Left supports may change a bit over time, just as religious doctrine does, it’s essentially taken on faith, like scripture.
That’s why, for example, you may see ferocious debates on the right side of the blogosphere about the war, illegal immigration, or spending. But, with the netroots, the debates almost always revolve around the best strategy to get more liberals elected. The issues are not really up for debate, other than debate over how to get them enacted.
This same thinking leads to very little criticism of liberals by other liberals. Liberals will ferociously defend and even happily echo the lies of other liberals. Liberal feminists will defend Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Liberals who pride themselves on being tolerant of other races will support Robert Byrd. Why? Because even if they’re wrong, they’re still fellow liberals — which must mean they’re nice people. What this leads to is an attitude that can be summed up like so: “The only things that a liberal can do wrong is to be insufficiently liberal, to question an important plank of the liberal agenda, or to do something politically that aids conservatives.”
Conservatives, on the other hand, just by virtue of being conservatives, are mean at best and evil at worst. Is it wrong to lie about an evil person? Technically, “yes,” but there’s a reason “two wrongs don’t make a right” is said so often — it’s because so many people do believe “two wrongs do make a right.” Moreover, what about defending the indefensible? Well, is it wrong to defend a good (liberal) person who is being attacked by an evil (conservative) person, even if it’s justifiable? At the gut level, most liberals don’t think so.
Once you understand what I’ve written so far, you can understand everything that liberals do.
* Why are so many liberals hostile to religion? Because religion sets rules and tells people that if they break those rules, they’re sinning! That keeps people from doing things that make them feel good and telling people that they’re sinning makes them feel bad.
* Why are so many liberals hostile to the troops? Because the troops tend to be conservative (evil) and because they’re out killing people and breaking things (which would make most liberals feel like bad people).
* Why are so many liberals unpatriotic? It makes liberals feel morally superior to rant about what’s wrong with their own country. Plus, as an added bonus, people from other nations agree with them and that makes them feel good as well.
* Why do so many liberals have so much confidence in the government? With liberals, it’s not about whether something works or not, it’s about how it makes them feel.
So, they can look at the IRS, post office, airport security, FEMA, and ICE and then say, “These are the same people we want handling our health care” — because it’s about making themselves feel good that they got people insured, not about getting the best system of health care for everyone.
* Why do so many liberals have so much confidence in the UN? See the previous answer and apply it on a global scale. The UN may be corrupt, anti-American, and utterly incompetent, but it makes liberals feel good to think that they’re sending money to the poor in some godforsaken country (sure, it’s not their money and almost all the money may be wasted or stolen, but it’s the thought that counts).
* Why are liberals so hostile to successful people who don’t happen to be celebrities, trial lawyers, or big donors to the Democratic Party? Again, this is another great opportunity for them to feel morally superior. They can feel like good people because they want to give money to the poor — granted, not their money, but rich people’s money. The rich have so much and the poor have so little, so why shouldn’t liberals take it from them and then pat themselves on the back for their compassion?
Once you understand the basics of how liberals think, you can understand everything that they do. Granted, there will be a few exceptions, but if the vast herd of liberals is doing something that doesn’t seem to fit the template, it’s either because there’s money or sex involved, they’re doing what they have to do to win politically, they’re taking that position because they refuse to be on the same side as conservatives, or there’s something going on you don’t know about and it’s not really an exception.
You’ve heard of the Dog Whisperer, right? Well, congrats, because after reading this column, you are now a “liberal whisperer” and you understand everything you need to know about the way that liberals think.
We will win this, and miller round 2 when it comes.
I think you're confused about FFL's... An FFL is a FEDERAL firearm license (note FEDERAL) and has agreed, upon application for license, to follow all BATFE regulations relating to their role as an FFL. It's pretty irrelevant whether those regs align or not with Federal, State, or municipal law, because the license is granted and maintained on proviso of following BATFE regulations..
So HB436 is totally irrelevant to FFL's since they're already regulated by BATFE. In precisely the same way as any/all Firearm Freedom acts are. Which is why I always find it funny that people ask FFL's how any of this stuff affects them, because by definition it can't affect how they do business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikethebike
Do you think Missouri FFL holders will actually sell guns in a manner other than in accordance to federal law with the new HB436 being passed. I would think the Feds will yank their ticket to buy wholesale guns from out of state then they are out of business. Unfortunately the Missouri law will make no difference. Too bad
if they issue a state permit, and have the will to protect the permit holder for all federal retaliation it will. The BATF is all big and bad kicking in doors at 3 in the morning, machine gunning dogs, shooting kids, burning down burning while trapping people inside...
now lets see these SS thugs take on the national guard, let see them get raped by an A-10 warthogs, M1 tanks and heavy .50 cal fire...I would love to see how brave F-troop would be.
if they issue a state permit, and have the will to protect the permit holder for all federal retaliation it will. The BATF is all big and bad kicking in doors at 3 in the morning, machine gunning dogs, shooting kids, burning down burning while trapping people inside...
If they issue a state permit it still will have zero impact of FFL's (except perhaps to allow them to sell intrastate).
All I'm saying is an FFL has voluntarily agreed to follow BATFE regs, one of those regs being to follow state laws as applicable. However in states that have more relaxed laws than federal law the FFL must still follow federal law. Since an FFL is an instrument of BATFE, they would be in violation of the terms of their license if they do not follow those regs. At minimum the FFL would have their license revoked, with minimal legal recourse since the requirements are defined by BATFE, not the state.
The FFL system is a direct result of the 1968 GCA which requires anyone engaged in the business of selling firearms for profit be licensed. However Missouri has nullified this (whether it's legal has yet to be determined), therefore there's no reason that anyone could not engage in the business of selling firearms for profit and not be licensed (as long as they don't fall under the interstate commerce clause). This doesn't prevent FFL's from selling firearms, but it does not eliminate their requirement to follow BATFE Regulations. So HR436 is irrelevant to any FFL.
The issue you're imagining is that without an FFL there are no gun dealers, however prior to the establishment of FFL's the US had a commercial firearms industry. How would this be possible if FFL's were a requirement for having a commercial firearm industry? They're not is the simple answer.
Some you don't know much about guns, when you decree that a full auto is SO MUCH more lethal than a semi auto.
BTW Bonnie and Clyde got most of their weapons from raiding police and national guard armories.
And as far as going back to the 20's in terms of bloodshed from gangsters that was because of prohibition which we still have plenty of gangster violence thanks to the war on drugs.
Here is a little lesson, set up a machine gun like a M60 or M240 or whatever and if you shoot from the front facing at horizontal line of people you'll miss the large portion. But take the machine gun to the flank and shoot at the line in a more verticle way and the deadliness of a machinegun shows itself.
I understand that, but how would a non FFL get parts for say a machine gun to sell in Missouri where that will presumably be legal? What I am saying is that it is nice that Missouri has made this law, but being that it is only a misdemeanor for a federal agent to enforce the federal law, the HB436 will really do nothing for gun rights.
I understand that, but how would a non FFL get parts for say a machine gun to sell in Missouri where that will presumably be legal?
Not that hard, with some simple machining you can make pretty much any firearm ever created. All you need is some bar stock casting facilities and sheet metal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikethebike
What I am saying is that it is nice that Missouri has made this law, but being that it is only a misdemeanor for a federal agent to enforce the federal law, the HB436 will really do nothing for gun rights.
Well it's a deterrent, and the legal position of someone who is being tried for an offense, who is apprehended by a FLEA who is in violation of state law, is significantly better. However ultimately MO, AK, MT, and a bunch of others who have sovereignty bills on firearms (either Firearms Freedom, or in MO's case HR436), they require a canary (someone who is going to be prosecuted) so that the courts can establish whether State or Federal law has superiority. The reason I use the term canary is that they were often taken into mines to detect dangerous gases, if the canary was alive you were fine, if it died you needed to get out, so the person being prosecuted is that canary.
Until someone is prosecuted or cleared under these laws we won't know whether they're legal. Logically the argument has two sides, the Federal Supremacy clause, vs. the 10th Amendment, for firearms it's not clear because the 2nd specifically prohibits Federal infringement, how infringement is interpreted is certainly debatable, however since it's something that is not delegated to the Federal Government, nor is it prohibited to the States, the 10th Amendment has some legal standing. How much is yet to be determined.
I brought up machine guns not because most gun owners own machine guns but because the Missouri Act specifically refers to the 193 Act, which relates to machine guns (requires registration and payment of tax for machine guns with the 1986 act prohibiting manufacture of future machine guns for civilian use).
Neither the Second nor Tenth Amendment mention machine guns. Machine guns were not manufactured at the time of the Second Amendment, just as nuclear weapons were not made at that time. Whether "the right to keep and bear arms" refers to machine guns is very much up for debate. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is a "in common use" standard for the Second Amendment. Machine guns may not meet the "in common use" standard.
With regard to the Tenth Amendment, it limits Congress from acting in areas it doesn't have the authority to legislate in. Various gun control statutes could come under Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce and impose indirect taxes.[/quote]
If I past a law on freedom of speech say you cant speak your mind with paying a 200 dollar tax, getting your figure prints taken, having your chief law enforcement officer sign of on what you have to say, waiting for 3 to 14 months, and live in a state that allows you to use certain words in the first place, then I would pass a law that said after a certain point no one could speak there mind, ever, for any reason after may 19 2013, now would that violate your 1st amendment rights? Yes it would,
now on the 10th amendment I think you just answer you own questions.
You cant tax constitutional rights, Murdock v Pennsylvania proved that.
Also the first amendment say nothing about the internet, or cell phones, Neither does the 4th amendment say anything about cars, planes, hard drives, your liberty never stagnates or contracts, but expends.
The Second Amendment is about self-defense, not about owning weapons capable of killing a lot of people in a short period of time. Owning such a weapon is not "liberty."
Some you don't know much about guns, when you decree that a full auto is SO MUCH more lethal than a semi auto.
BTW Bonnie and Clyde got most of their weapons from raiding police and national guard armories.
And as far as going back to the 20's in terms of bloodshed from gangsters that was because of prohibition which we still have plenty of gangster violence thanks to the war on drugs.
Here is a little lesson, set up a machine gun like a M60 or M240 or whatever and if you shoot from the front facing at horizontal line of people you'll miss the large portion. But take the machine gun to the flank and shoot at the line in a more verticle way and the deadliness of a machinegun shows itself.
A full auto is more lethal than a semi-auto as you stated. I think you are making a case for banning many semi-automatic guns.
If they issue a state permit it still will have zero impact of FFL's (except perhaps to allow them to sell intrastate).
All I'm saying is an FFL has voluntarily agreed to follow BATFE regs, one of those regs being to follow state laws as applicable. However in states that have more relaxed laws than federal law the FFL must still follow federal law. Since an FFL is an instrument of BATFE, they would be in violation of the terms of their license if they do not follow those regs. At minimum the FFL would have their license revoked, with minimal legal recourse since the requirements are defined by BATFE, not the state.
The FFL system is a direct result of the 1968 GCA which requires anyone engaged in the business of selling firearms for profit be licensed. However Missouri has nullified this (whether it's legal has yet to be determined), therefore there's no reason that anyone could not engage in the business of selling firearms for profit and not be licensed (as long as they don't fall under the interstate commerce clause). This doesn't prevent FFL's from selling firearms, but it does not eliminate their requirement to follow BATFE Regulations. So HR436 is irrelevant to any FFL.
The issue you're imagining is that without an FFL there are no gun dealers, however prior to the establishment of FFL's the US had a commercial firearms industry. How would this be possible if FFL's were a requirement for having a commercial firearm industry? They're not is the simple answer.
But doesn't the Federal government have a mandatory agreement to follow the Constitution/Bill of rights?
If the state issues permits for STATE BASED SFL (State Firearm license) it would be a non issue and maybe rounding up a few ATF agents who wish to enforce unjust laws.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
