Sadly, Mr. Barr is correct. The banks are now finding out that by accepting their ‘handouts’, they sold their souls to the devil!! Some are already attempting to give the money back to the feds for they cannot stay in business with Washington tinkering constantly. Can only imagine how the Obama/Pelosi axis would treat charities, and the rules they would impose. It is apparent that they want total control!
It is time for President Obama to take some advice from folks who thought there would be ‘change’ in the right direction, and that HE WOULD follow through on what he promised that he would do! At present, terribly DISAPPOINTED! He may have to learn that DISAPPOINTMENT affects BOTH PARTIES!
Think he should take the following under advisement:
1) Select cabinet members who are not tax cheats! Such is a reflection on your own values.
2) Stop the new Attorney General from calling the nation ‘cowards’ and fueling divisiveness. Scolding after the fact is not convincing.
3) At least in the beginning, ADHERE to the promises made regarding doing away with EARMARKS and PORK BARREL spending; and keeping lobbyists out of key cabinet positions. REMEMBER — YOU HAVE VETO POWERS!! Now that the FY 2009 Appropriations Bill ($410 Billion) has been approved, you can veto it if you do not want to fund over 8,500 earmarks! (NO MORE EXCUSES!)
4) Cease talking down business, and attempting to make successful enterprises the enemy! You will have to rely on them to pay the bills for your initiatives.
5) Refrain from speaking of the ’stock market’ in a cavalier way since there are millions of Americans who had depended upon the ‘market’ for their retirement through planning their own futures (401k and IRAs). At age 70, one’s options are limited, BUT WE STILL VOTE!
6) Do not use tax payer money to bail out individuals who were not disciplined enough to think through personal financial obligations before committing to same. THIS IS REWARDING RISKY BEHAVIOR — AT OUR EXPENSE! (Many of us learned the hard way as well, and came out the better for it!)
7) Stop blaming the current situation on your predecessor when your own party has had both chambers of Congress for over two years — WHICH YOU WERE A MEMBER — and, Barney Franks and Chris Dodd were in charge of the Congressional Banking Committees. Additionally, you had friends in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae ( Mr. Raines and Mr. Johnson). This just causes folks who vote for you to question their own judgment as to whether or not they chose a guy NOT UP TO THE TASK!
The ‘bipartisanship’ touted during the campaign to be brought to Washington by the Obama Administration is not a ‘one way street’, or a night at the Whitehouse watching a movie or a game. It requires mutual trust, compromise, and demonstrated
credibility .. with true bipartisanship. Beating up on Eric Cantor — or the ‘boogey person’ of the day is not a recommended strategy. Suggest the process begin!
9) Refrain from using the Whitehouse to attempt to silence critics– Jim Cramer, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli and now Eric Cantor. It cheapens the office, and causes one to seriously question your priorities when we are in a serious economic crisis. Refer to item #8. Remember, this is not Chicago politics!
10) Deal more with substance rather than style, including weaning yourself from the teleprompter.
11) If in charge, TAKE CHARGE — that includes engaging the Speaker of the House. SHE IS NOT THE CO-PRESIDENT!
12) Daily pronouncements/speeches (stem cell research and education as examples) without detail plans; impacts on citizens; specific objectives and outcomes — NOT GENERALITIES; and the costs; are really a waste of time, and you will find that your bully pulpit will rapidly become an ordinary soap box — made of cardboard. Please do the homework before calling a crowd and saying ‘nothing’.
13) Bring on a chief of protocol who can keep the Whitehouse and State Department straight, where there will be fewer embarrassments — such as we suffered (and still suffering) the week of March 2d. That was pretty sophomoric.
14) LISTEN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE — NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO THINK THEY ARE SAYING, BUT, WHAT THEY ARE SAYING!! MAKE US WANT TO SUPPORT YOUR EFFORTS, NOT — REGRET OUR VOTE OF NOVEMBER 4!!
Credibility of a leader is EARNED — IT IS NOT BESTOWED.
Amen Mr. Barr!! I teach at a Private Christian School… my income comes from paying parents and local donations. People justify giving to non-profits because they get some of it back. With the economy hurting already you had less of a reason to give. Mr. Barr continue to keelhaul his version of change. These next four years are going to drag buy. Mr. Barr what are your plans for the Governers Race, any intrest?
Mr. Barr misrepresents what is being proposed and then goes off on a tangent about corporate giving to cover up his mistake.
Here’s what the budget proposal says:
The Administration’s Budget includes a proposal to limit the tax rate at which high-income taxpayers can take itemized deductions to 28 percent— and the initial reserve fund would be funded in part through this provision. This provision would raise $318 billion over 10
years.
The proposal does not cap what can be given; it only proposes capping the tax rate of the deduction. In other words, if you are currently in the 33% tax bracket, the deduction is worth 5% less than it would be now.
You think rich people are that hard-hearted that they would cut back giving just because they won’t be able to deduct 100% of it?? You’re serious, right?
And since when do so-called liberatarians think the tax code should be used to promote social goals?
Mr. Barr, you had my vote. I didn’t trust those other 2 idiots. Please don’t give up!! After 8 years of Bush and (God forbid!!) 8 years of Obama, I hope the ignorant American voters will be ready for REAL change. The only change we got this go-round was in skin color. Same idiotic ideas…..same idiotic pandering. It’s time to clean house and send the RNC and DNC where they belong….CHINA!!
Some good points by Mr.Barr indeed. The tax system is largely un-Constitutional, as the 16th Amendment (income tax) wasn’t properly ratified. While taxpayer (fiat) dollars are “stolen” to prop up the banks (& their fractional reserve banking policies), the non-profits (& middle class) will continue to suffer. The best answer is abolishment of the (private) Fed, IRS & income tax. However, the Globalist pawns on “Crapitol sHill” are totally beholden to the Central Banking Cartel, so these (long needed) actions will sadly never happen. It’s pathetic that (patriot) Congressman Ron Paul couldn’t find any (non co-opt’d) co-sponsors for his Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act (H.R. 833). This speaks volumes for the cowardice of the puppets in DC!
I remember when the United Way gave free soccer uniforms to Dunwoody kids years ago and reading about the small percentage of donations that actually benefit anyone. If this has not changed significantly, I feel no pain for the United Way.
Hey Bob, As long as you are railing against the horrible proposals of this administration, maybe you could take some time to appologize for your votes while in Washington that aided in the decline of liberty and the economy of this country. Unread Patriot Act ring a bell?
“Buyers remorse”, Pappy Happy, is not available as a remedy for your poor selection(s) in the Presidential contest. There’s no three day right of recission available here to correct a choice apparently conceived in Obama’s hype and sermonizing. Sadly, a large number of “independent” voters occasionally delude themselves into thinking that Democratic sloganeering like “Change You Can Believe In” is anything other than “Chains for Your Deceivin’”.
So spare me the theatrics and next time just make the smart vote (Romney).
David S @ 11:53 – Good allusion to Barr’s past Neocon leanings (support of the so-called “Patriot” Act). In his defense, he’s recently been working with the ACLU (whom I disagree with on 90% of issues..sans privacy rights protection) to address/remedy the growing Orwellian police state.
“Byte Me” doesn’t understand the concept of things happening “at the margin” in economics. Yes, a 5% decrease in one’s being able to make a deduction will affect their behavior.
As noted economist Jude Wanniski explained: “The concept of marginality is crucial to an understanding of economic behavior. Everyone knows about ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back.’ It is always that ‘last straw’ that causes a change in the situation, the marginal straw, even though it weighs exactly the same as each of the other 10,000. But it is one thing to see that change occurs on the margin and quite another to understand that each straw is equally to blame for the breaking of the camel’s back. Very few people think on the margin, but everyone acts on the margin, which is why it is so hard to see that the electorate, as a whole, understands economics.”
I encourage you to read Wanniski’s writings on the subject of people acting “at the margin”. Here’s the link:
So Pelosi was threatening to shut down the govt. if Obama didn’t sign the Omnibus bill “as-is” ? I think he could have gone a long way to winning people over (people like me) if he had vetoed it and stood up to her. He would have looked like the good guy standing up for his principles. But now he looks weak(er).
Good allusion to Barr’s past Neocon leanings (support of the so-called “Patriot” Act). In his defense, he’s recently been working with the ACLU (whom I disagree with on 90% of issues..sans privacy) to address/remedy the growing Orwellian police state.
Did Mr Barr consider that charitable contributions may be down because of the bad economy, and American families just not having the money to contribute, rather than 50 days of Obama being in office? And, to continue the line, does Mr. Barr know whose policies over the last 8 years caused the bad economy?
RGB: Of course I understand what you’re saying. It’s how people finally got out of their SUVs when gas hit $4/gal.
However, just because you postulate a particular economic theory doesn’t make it automatically true in all circumstances. See “supply-side economics” (worked great when the top tax rate went from 70% to 39%, but did not work when it got lowered from 39% to 33%).
On the other hand, poll after poll about people and their giving indicates that they do it not because of the tax deduction, but because it makes them feel better. A minor adjustment to the tax code isn’t going to suddenly change that feeling.
Think of it this way: you know how precious home ownership is here, right? And that there’s an argument that has been stated that if you take away the mortgage deduction that home ownership levels would drop and kill the real estate industry and builders? Still with me? Did you know Canada does not have a mortgage interest deduction for their tax code AND their home ownership levels are the same as ours?
Not every social good is driven by a favorable line in the tax code, just the same as not every possible evil in the universe will come if we adjust the tax code to raise more revenue.
Byte Me – You write that “not every social good is driven by a favorable line in the tax code…” While true, it ignores the basic point that when you eliminate or reduce the deductability of charitable contributions for people, those individuals by definition have *less money to be able to give*. You cannot give at the same level when you have to hold back additional money to pay higher taxes because the government reduced the deductability of a contribution. Remember too that statists relish making more people dependent on government by reducing the ability of charities to care for their constituents. If you are a statist, then you see nothing wrong with that approach.
I re-read my comments and found nowhere that I wrote that “a particular economic theory applies in all circumstances.” Please don’t put words in my mouth as that is not sanitary.
Regarding your Canada example, you cannot compare one country’s rate of home ownership (or any other thing) to another’s–then explain it by a single variable unless other variables are held constant. Economists use the term ceteris paribus–other things being equal. The deductability of home mortgages may be one variable but there are many others. Home size, home value, other tax rates, and the cost of money are but a few examples. But would you suggest that the U.S. end mortgage deductions–and that in doing so it would have no effect on the economy? Or on mortgage delinquencies? Or personal bankruptcies or foreclosures? Should we do this in our current economic times?
The problem is that politicians and bureaucrats encroach on the private sector. One says we should scale back (on the road to eliminating) charitable deductions. Another person says eliminate mortgage interest deductions. Another wants to save the environment by having a “tax and trade” (or cap and trade) scheme that raises utility rates by “only” 40%. Still another politician wants to reinstate taxes on groceries while another raises taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and even speeders. Still another wants to raise taxes on capital gains, income, and dividends. Collectively, these ideas take a huge toll on people while separately they may look (to some, at least) harmless. I believe it was Herman Talmadge who famously said “don’t tax you, don’t tax me. Tax that man behind the tree.”
Raising the hurdle rate on either businesses or individuals is dumb in any economic climate but is especially shortsighted at present. Google “tax on yachts backfired” and you’ll be reminded of when politicians were going to raise revenue for the Treasury by taxing yachts purchased by “the rich.” The result was that the yacht industry suffered substantially, many workers lost their jobs, and the Treasury’s take of revenue declined because fewer boats were sold and there were fewer workers around to pay taxes. Plus, these displaced workers consumed social services at a higher rate. And this happened under G.H.W. Bush.
I understand basic economics and I believe Mr. Obama and the Democrats do too. The difference is they love power more than they love liberty and free enterprise while I do not.
Let’s not incrementalize our way to becoming a poorer people.
RGB: I don’t have time to debate your entire thesis, but I think these two sentences were key and worthy of a counter-thought:
While true, it ignores the basic point that when you eliminate or reduce the deductability of charitable contributions for people, those individuals by definition have *less money to be able to give*. You cannot give at the same level when you have to hold back additional money to pay higher taxes because the government reduced the deductability of a contribution.
This really doesn’t make as much sense as you’d like it to, because it would only apply to couples making more than $250K taxable income and would only adjust the rate by deduction rate by 5% for those couples. If it was 100% or for people under $250K, your statement makes perfect sense. I can only tell you based on my experiences and the experiences of those around me who are at the same financial level (yes, we do talk about these things) that that 5% doesn’t mean anything once you get to that level of income. That’s not what keeps us giving or not. It’s the unpredictable nature of our own income streams that affects us, not the level of deductibility of our charitable contributions.
Suffice it to say that you don’t really appreciate the fact that peoples’ action DO occur at the margin.
If you think the deduction limit on charitable contributions will stop at folks making >$250k/yr., you aren’t a student of history. Government doesn’t do a little of anything.
By increasing taxes on these contributions, the government directly says “we want people to make fewer charitable contributions.” Remember the adage about if you want less of something, tax it.
In addition, you don’t appreciate that inflation will force more and more people into that $250k bracket over time. Then what will your response be?
One final question: If people are absolutely not deterred by a 5% difference, what is the precise level at which they are deterred from giving? Is it 80%? Or would 50% do it? Or is it just 20%? Is it the same for everyone (as you suggest it is)? The answer is “no”. It occurs at the margin.
Be safe in picking up your kids. I hope your vehicle meets the upcoming CAFE standards and that you don’t have a carbon footprint on which you will soon be taxed.
RGB: you’re going for the slippery slope argument, which is demonstrably wrong, since the slope doesn’t always lead in the direction of the worst case scenario.
By taxing food and clothing, you’re also saying the government doesn’t want us to buy that, but we do, so there you go. It’s not always a social agenda with the government, even if it sometimes seems like it is.
What inflation? You see any inflation out there in the past 6 months? Seriously, though: the ranges change regularly, but $250K is still not anywhere close to the current median income for households in the USA, so I’m not really worried about that. AMT will get them first anyway.
As for your final question: yes, that’s an interesting game to play, but just as people were predicted to change their driving habits at $2.50/gal, it turned out that it took until it reached $4/gal before anyone got out of their cars. Sometimes we’re all like the joke about boiling frogs (you put them in cold water and turn on the heat and they don’t notice until it gets really hot). Anyway, 5% isn’t going to be the number that will affect behavior, and I’m guessing that those who want to give will give even if it wasn’t deductible. Some people are just like that.
Relax and enjoy life. Stop worrying so much about taxes. People got rich when the top tax rate was 70%. They just didn’t spend like mad mall zombies then.
To “Atlanta Native”: Your statement about United Way Atlanta’s ’small percentage of donations that actually benefit anyone’ is incorrect. According to financial reports by United Way of Metroplitan Atlanta — and the independent rating organization, CharityNavigator.org (check it out for yourself)the amount of money that goes to direclty support local programs through United Way is better than 90% — that’s an overhead right at 10%.
Finally, common sense and sound judgement prevail!! In these times of financial uncertainty and the city council’s systemic fiscal irresponsibility, it’s high time they took a step in the right direction.
Wow, an 8 million dollar price tag for now what may be 80 million and more in city costs and woes. That campaign money attracted and enticed thousands to relocate to this city where the pay and wage scale are not commensurate with the high cost of living. Poor school system, at large. If you work as day laborer in Atlanta you better work two and a half jobs or have six roommates. Aging infrastructure and highways that continually get quick fixes, but even band aids dont last. Ever Increasing crime rate. Public transportation solutions for the last five years have not dented the problem in highway and main streets plugging. Mayor Franklin – Atlanta does not need a cute trolley car system. Invest the money in BETTERING public transportation and extending the train lines, hours and security. The decent and somewhat classy venues for entertainment and eateries close by midnight. Thank goodness tickets to Vegas are cheap and I dont even gamble.
Finally real estate used to be a real bonus in Atlanta but not any more. Even buying foreclosed properties wont improve the neighborhood market value folks. My purchase of a property four years ago in a highly sought after area didnt yield me the projected $50 value-up but has nose dived some $30,000 in property value.
Bob, at least you don’t live in Chicago where I do. This city and state SUCKS!
Illinois Income Tax May Jump 50 Percent
Report: Gov. Pat Quinn Wants Tax Hike To Fight Deficit
Income taxes in Illinois could soon be going up by as much as 50 percent to combat deficits in a difficult state budget.
As CBS 2’s Joanie Lum reports, Gov. Pat Quinn is reportedly considering raising taxes to deal with a growing budget deficit.
Quinn has been hinting about the problems in the state budget this year for some time. He gives his first address on the subject next Wednesday, and there is word that income taxes will go up as 50 percent.
The Chicago Tribune reports that Quinn wants to raise the state income tax to 4.5 percent from 3 percent.
Bob, clearly the 3 year old tagline is not so unforgettable. It has received over 2 million media impressions in just the past 5 days alone. Why does the media continue to dredge up old news? Not every tactic of a 5 year branding strategy is going to be a home run. People have to focus on the results of the entire effort and the return on investment. Brand Atlanta did have some measurable results that resulted in increased, incremental visitor spending.
Brand Atlanta saw the needle start to move in measures commonly used by the hospitality industry. Atlanta as a city saw an increase in its share in the top 25 U.S. travel markets, from 5.8 percent in 2004 to 6.0 percent by 2006, during the period that coincided with a massive citywide resident ambassador effort and ad campaign. The goal was 6.8 percent by 2011. This is when the lion’s share of marketing dollars were spent on recruiting residents to become personal ambassadors for the city and influence their friends and relatives to visit.
The result, for which Brand Atlanta can and should take some credit, Atlanta saw significant growth of 10.7 percent in overnight tourists and leisure visitors in 2006, representing an increase of 1.4 million tourists who spent more than $100 per day, on average, at area restaurants, museums, shops, and hotels. Here’s where the public and private funding contributors, got their return on investment.
Lastly, the city rose from 18th place to 12th place in a ranking of top meeting destinations, according to a national annual survey of meeting planners.
The current Brand Atlanta campaign, Treasures Fit for Kings, is doing extremely well. Tickets sales have surpassed projections. Here’s the website http://www.atlanta.net/camp/treasures08/reg.asp.
Amazing that the Brand Atlanta folks want to take credit for the surge in Atlanta tourism in 2006. There was a big fish tank that opened for business in downtown Atlanta in November 2005. More than 3 million people visited it the first year. All thanks to Brand Atlanta, right?
Maybe Brand Atlanta can move to Los Angeles, where they may soon be desperately seeking a new image:
1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people)are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal , whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L. A. Are Spanish speaking.
10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.
(There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County . )
All 10 of the above are from the Los Angeles Times
Good points Mr. Barr, its time we get beyond that Miami special interest group that has molded US foreign policy in regards to Cuba. Obama owes them little or nothing and this is a win-win situation for everyone who believes in peaceful, respectfull international relations. It’s about time the US image of the big bully on the block be reversed. There are enough problems at home these days than to be spreading hate elsewhere. Let’s hope Obama is ready to go down in history as the president who finally instituted a friendly US-Cuba policy. It’s also time that all US citizens be allowed to travel to Cuba and see it for themselves. People to people exchange is healthy with any country. For more on Cuba today check out: http://www.havanatimes.org
Whether our government’s Cuba policy gets revisited is going to be largely impacted by how the ex-pat Cuban community reacts and just how badly some folks in Washington DC wet their pants over it.
I agree 100%! What message are we sending when we ostracize Cuba but give China favored nation status? Makes no sense in today’s world. In 1961, I understand the purpose, but in 2009 where is the logic?
Right on, Bob! We’re the only country in the world where it’s illegal to buy Cuban stogies. Ridiculous. We should all be able to enjoy Monty #2’s, Cohiba Siglo VI’s and Esplendidos and all the other fine Cubano brands LEGALLY.
Mr. Barr, correct again. The dialog needs to start now and I’d go one step further. Put it on the fast track. If we do not establish better relations with and a presence in Cuba, i.e. beat Russia, China, and Venezuela to the punch, we may very well end up regretting it Besides, those cigars and rum are calling my name as well.
I agree with you 100%. Our current Cuba policy is a total failure. it does not hurt the Cuban regime, it hurts the Cuban people. The embargo has been condemned by 185 nations.
It is time for dialogue, reconciliation and the reestablishment of normal diplomatic and trade relations.
for once, mr barr. i completely agree with you. this would be a good move for both countries. what is the point now of continuing with an embargo? thanks for beginning the discussion.
Bob, are you sick? For a Republican to state that the US should begin having relations with Cuba by openning trade is….is…is…about time! While we have had disagreements with Cuba in the past, it is about time to take an active roll in correcting this past indiscretion. We may even have a positive affect on the selection of Castro’s heir, or even a Democracy. At minimum we could actually talk to them and possibly avoid a Venezalan type of government relationship.
The fact is we have relationships with countries we do not agree with and have a far worse record on human rights. Saudi Arabia is one. If we had a relationship with cuba it would solve a lot of problems and open up opportunities we have never thought of. Does anyone realize Cuba trains a significant percentage of the third world’s doctors and other medical staff. In fact many doctors in the US were actually trained in Cuba.
What all the Kennedy lovers fail to mention is that he ordered members of his staff to buy up all the Cuban cigars in DC the night before he initiated the embargo. What a slime.
Yes Mr. Barr, its high time to trade, etc. with the nation of Cuba. The embargo is only hurting the people and empowering the Castro family. That is the way it always goes with embargos, but politicians fail to realize that.
For instance, while you were voting every time to continue the embargo against Iraq that cost 1.5 million innocent lives, how much thought did you give to the possibility that it would embolden Osama bin Laden and give him tons of ammunition in his recruiting efforts to wage war against the US, including 9-11? Just wiping your hands of that responsibility are you Mr. Barr?
Normalized relations will never happen so long as our elected officials allow the opinions of a relatively small group of zealots in south florida to influence our foreign policy. Of course the same could be said about the influence of the pro-Israel lobby that controls our mideast foreign policy.
Neither has the best interests of freedom or the american people at heart, but since when have these ever been on the agenda of the US government.
I think its a good idea to open normal relations with Cuba. After all, sending thousands of American news reporters there, snooping all around, will do us both a lot of good. After all, after a visit to a Cuban political prisoner cell, Gitmo would look pretty good.
Communism and repressive governments have nothing to do with it…we do business with communist China ( btw, they own us via our debt ), and repressive sultanate Arab governments in Saudi Arabia and dictatorships in Venezuela..it has to do with money…do they have something we want? oil, cheap goods, or nothing we want rather than proximity. Thats why its taken us so long to attempt to normalize relations..
PeaDawg. You should change your name to “Pea Brain”.
If you could abandon your rabid ways, wipe the foam from your mouth and come into the real world you might come to realize that our biggest TRADE partner and CREDITOR is….CHINA!! Did you know they were as “Communist” as communist can be??? Or are you in fact as stupid as we all know you to be??? Care to elaborate on the logic behind your statement again??
This is one of the best ideas our President has had. I know he mentioned it earlier, but now is the time to talk to Cuba. The pictures that I have seen of Cuba, says that they were left in the 1960’s in everything. Some Cubans who were successful in fleeing, have not been able to see their family members, and most have died. I would like for them to be able to travel to Cuba with ease and we do other countries. As soon as Cuba opens free travel, there would be millions of US dollars poured into their economy as a tourist attraction. This is a great idea, and I hope it garners maximum support from congress.
The 50 year embargo is little more than a bureaucratic wall. How cans depriving Cuba of the experience of our Demoratized form of Capitalism ever hope to tempt it with the prospects of liberty? We’ve only endeavored to ensure that what they don’t know, they can’t know. What truths can ever be self-evident that aren’t shared by example? In the grand scheme of things, our isolationist policies toward Cuba have helped nobody on either shore and make the great and powerful United States seem a bit less great and a lot less powerful.
I cannot believe how ignorant people are… How can you have relationships with a government that treats its people like animals? We simply cannot have relations with a country that would not allow their people to enjoy the same things as the tourist that visit Cuba. In America you can say hate Bush or Obama and you will not go to jail… Try that there and see what happens! We need regime change or have talks for change, but no relations without regime change!
The Cuban government’s track record on human rights is well documented but, as Mr. Barr states, after almost 50 years our embargo has done little except make life more difficult for the Cuban people. It is time for a change and the U.S. could certainly benefit from the positive publicity generated as a result of normalizing relations with Cuba.
We deal with China, they are worse than Cuba; we also deal with Russia, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Viet Nam and a whole host of bad guys. Cuba is a small fish in an ocean of bad guys…..
Suffering cats – much like the supposed “surprise attack” that Pearl Harbor wasn’t, and the “innocent” Lusitania that was carrying weapons to Britain in violation of our neutrality agreement, the Tonkin Gulf “incident”, the “weapons of mass destruction”, and every other lie our government has used to lie us into war, most historians now acknowledge that the explosion of the Maine was likely an accident that was exploited by our government to get us into war and once again increase its power and funnel money to the military industrial complex.
Please do remember the Maine and remember that governments always lie.
Aside from bankrupting itself on socialism, one of the other key factors in the demise of the soviet union was the extensive cultural exchange that went on between american tourists and the soviet peoples. A great economist once said “when goods cannot travel accross borders, bombs will.” High time for peace, commerce, and good will again with Cuba. Likely it will be the straw that breaks the Castro family hold on the population.
Bob’s not a Republican, he’s a Libertarian, and like most Libertarians he is right again. Stupid policies are crippling this country, like the so-called Drug War. Talk about a waste of money and resources. Let the scumbag drug users buy their crap for cheap and let the Darwin Theory go to work. In the long run, it would save this country a lot of grief. And if they put in some kind of ingredient that everyone who uses drugs sterile, it really would improve things.
Amen. While I still love my Nicaraugan cigars, I would also love to be able to sample Cubans without fear of reprisal.
I have many friends who are Cuban expats, and I have zero love for the Castro regime. However, I’m no big fan of Hugo Chavez either, and last time I checked, that big Citgo sign is still behind the Green Monster at Fenway Park.
I rarely agree with Bob but I agree wholeheartedly here. It’s time to end this ridiculous embargo and move forward. Freezing the Cubans out has not worked in fifty years. Let’s give something else a try!
Really? The Brand Atlanta people really want to take credit for the surge in tourism? Let’s take a regional poll and see how many of their slogans are working in the southeast.
I’m sure they can take some of the credit, but it seems a little false.
Maybe the geniuses behind “Fanplex” should have taken credit for increased attendance at Braves games.
Bob! You just want to pollute them with capitalism! It is a socialist state…ahhh… but we have a socialist President; hey it might work, we all can be socialists together.
Bring on those Cuban stogies!!!!!! It is about time to open relations with a non-threatening country. China is a threat to all of the world and yet we have relations with them because it is prudent to do so. Why not end the cow-towing to ex-pat Cubans and get things normalized now? We also have “relations” with Russia and other former-East-bloc countries now. So, why not Cuba?
We do need to open normal relations with Cuba. I for one believe if we open relations with Cuba you will see that most of the south Florida Cubans will rejoice. They will now be able to visit their relatives and their homeland. I also believe that when they visit they will carry with them the feeling of freedom and it will without notice change Cuba with every visit.
and I’d like to be able buy Cuban rum… on Sundays. The thought of open trade with Cuba is appealing, but I find open trade within the State of Georgia to be far more appealing. Sonny is not a lame duck, he’s just plain lame.
We should never deal with Commie Countries, We only should deal with free countries who has a history of treating all their people with dignity like China!!
Pay no attention to this wonk. I was at the meeting of homeowners that spewed fury at him when he supported the Northern Arc. He’s just another washed up politician still spouting his stupid crap.
My suggestion is we send in Steve Wynn from Vegas and Bill Marriott–of the hotel chain–and use US taxpayer money to turn the whole country into a giant playground for the rich, and turn all the local peasants into chambermaids and janitors.
Whatever industry Cuba has left, (sugar?, tequila? ) we could nationalize and use US taxpayer money to compete with American corporations. We could send money from the last Farm Pork Bill and allow a small contingent of farmers to continue to grow weed–because I heard it was —”killer”.
THEN, we could build a massive airbase at US taxpayer expense, so Cuba could land and support the Russian long-range bombers they said they wanted–along with Venezuela strongman Chavez.
Speaking of Chavez, we don’t want to make him mad, so we could prohibit drilling for oil in the massive oil field Fidel says he has found, and drive up the price of energy on the US consumers. Of course, the Chinese will be able to drill all the oil they want or need.
We could build a 90 mile bridge, at US taxpayer expense, to connect Key West with Cuba, and any and all Cuban refugees could pour into the US and be immediately eligible for US healthcare, education, welfare, medicare, Social Security, a share of everybody’s 401K, voting rights, and US citizenship with no-questions-asked.
We could carve a full length image of Fidel on Mt. Rushmore shaking hands with Obama and Michele, and erase those disgusting images of George Washington,Thomas Jefferson, and Theodore Roosevelt, If course, we would leave Lincoln– but change his face to be smiling approvingly at Obama
And FINALLY!! At US taxpayer expense, we could outfit Fidel and his brother with their own White House, their own Camp David, fund their own army of lobbyists to petition US legislators for more money for God-knows-what, and a Cuban AirForce One 747 and a fleet of Marine One choppers—-all expenses paid.
AND–we could call all this debt to our children and children’s children—a STIMULUS package, and proclaim Obama the GREAT EMANCIPATOR of Latin America–further positioning him for Sainthood (as if he needed it).
We’ve been trading with China and Vietnam, negotiating with North Korea, and have relations with all of the ex-Soviet Union nations and eastern block nations that have been slowly migrating back toward Communism, and we’ve been doing some of this for decades. It’s time to quit making Cuba the only special case left.
Communism is eventually going to fail in Cuba. Let’s help push it on its way.
We buy all the junk China has to offer, even though they are a communist country and treat their citizens like crap. However, we are not afraid of little old Cuba and we should punish them, because they are communist.
Give a break.
As a Democrat, I rarely agree with Bob on anything political, but Bob is right on the money on this. It is about time. Cuba is no more a threat. I mean, we trade with China (everything is about made there now anyway) and they are more of a Communist threat, so I don’t see what the problem is. If they allowed US travel to Cuba, I’d be on the first plane. Beautiful beaches, weather, and of course, the most beautiful women on the planet! End the embargo!
I think we tell all the fat cats either you ok trading with Cuba or agree to a mandatory minimum of ten years in jail if you are caught with one of those Cuban cigars you have been smoking for all these years. These guys are hypocrites. Castro and his brother will not be around that much longer. We have been trading with Russia and China for years. We trade with President Chavez of Venezuela. We called Saddam Hitler and continued to buy oil from them as we invaded Iraq. It is time to end this farce we all know Cubans have been sending home money illegally for years and fat cats have smoked Cuban cigars for years as well.
We could transform the Army’s hellfire missiles to contain and transport US dollars, and we could launch them over Cuba and SHOWER American dollars on the Cuban lower class in a MASSIVE redistribution of wealth DIRECTLY from the US Taxpayer to the dirt farmers. Each bill will have imprinted on it: “Courtesy of Barack Obama” so due credit is given.
Those Cubans coming to America would be given preferences in hiring, benefits, wages and promotions. I mean–after all—think how long they have been “held down” under their Socialistic/Communist system for decades (but you won’t be able to say that). Call it “Reparations”.
And all those 50/60s cars still running down there, we will FORCE Ford/GM/Chrysler to retrofit EACH of them to US emission control and mileage standards and seat belts, with a 100,000 mile warranty. Of course, we’ll provide tax breaks for building plants for parts in Cuba vs: the USA. The duty on US cars would prohibit any importing of them. After all, we don’t want to kill Cuba’s native industries?
When it comes to education, Obama could send an army of Washington, DC teachers to Cuba headed up by William Ayers, with BILLION$ in taxpayer dollars. We could give them a 1st hand view of government indoctrination–DC & Chicago-style— that makes Castro’s look like pre-school! (PS: NO VOUCHERS ALLOWED!).
Obama could anoint Monica Lewinsky as “Cigar Queen”, since she opened up a whole new use and application for cigars, greatly expanding the market. .
I think opening up trade with Cuba is a GREAT idea, Bob!
I certainly wouldn’t want the USA to normalize relations with Cuba. The USA are known to be exploiters and Cuba would be required to accept conditions which would only benefit Americans.The last time Cuba and the USA were engaged in economic and political interaction,drugs and prostitution was very prevalent on the Island.I am Cuban and I personally would not want a one-sided relationship with the USA.Simply put,stay the hell out of my country!
GO BACK TO “YOUR COUNTRY”! You certainly don’t belong here!
Are you stating that it is America’s fault that your country is full of whores and drug dealers?
After calling the USA “exploiters”, you’re going to have to explain why we returned EVERY INCH of territory we won in WW1 and WW2 won with the blood of patriots, except the land needed to bury our dead.
TAKE THAT BACK you disrespectful ingrate! …and get the hell out of this country and back to Cuba–if it is so great….
I think it is high time that we normalize relations with Cuba. I never really liked Bob Barr, be he is absolutely correct on this one. When you consider his point about what we have actually gained over the past 50 years from this embargo..wow what an eye opener!!
And considering all the jabber and propaganda about Cuba’s suitability as a base for Russian bombers, they are once again laying the groundwork for a U.S. challenge. Why? Because they view us as a broke, brokEN, divided country and nothing like staging another showdown to show the world whether we are still a true superpower or a bunch of loudmouth chip on the shoulder chumps – which unforunately the last “regime” projected oh so well. Normalizing relations with Cuba I feel totally nullifies the Russian influence. You watch and see.. I bet silently Cuba and Cubans have been praying for such a thing for years now..
Goooooooooooooood morning/ Ho-ray for Bob. The Cubans furnish M.D.’s around the world during troubled times and every body goes to school and pays attention.
How about the US Nationalize the petroleum industry. We’ve nationalized so many BAD companies, we might as well grab some that are making huge profits.
I read an article about this in the AJC last week. The spin in that article was that rich people are happier than poor people. Without questioning the methodology our hometown paper wanted us to know that our rich neighbors are yukking it up while we suffer through the recession. No surprises there. Just good, old fashioned class warfare.
Finally, the time has arrived to fix Americas Healthcare crisis, and Americas healthcare knightmare. Hundreds of thousands of you are killed needlessly every year by your healthcare delivery system in a rush to profit. And because of a rush to profit Hundreds of thousands more of you are needlessly dying from treatable illness that people in other developed and civilized countries don’t DIE! from. Rich, middle class, and poor alike. Insured, and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies.
Additionally, thousands more of you are driven into financial ruin, and bankruptcy just because you, or one of your loved ones got sick or injured. And all of this is happening at a time when America spends twice as much of it’s GDP (Gross Domestic Productivity) on health care than any other country in the developed world. Individual Americans spend about ten times as much on health care as any other people in the developed world. This is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. AND IT MUST END!
But before we can truly fix this healthcare crisis and disgrace, everyone needs to clearly understand what the problem is. And everyone needs to clearly understand the real enormity of the problem. The problem is that HEALTHCARE AND MEDICAL DELIVERY IN AMERICA IS SEVERELY CORRUPTED AND COMPROMISED BY GREED! AND THE PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MOTIVE. And it is corrupted, and compromised IN EVERY ASPECT, AND EVERY PLACE OF HEALTHCARE AND MEDICAL DELIVERY. Unfortunately for all Americans, compromised healthcare ALWAYS results in needless suffering, injury, disability, and or death. Which is exactly what is happening now in America in shocking numbers.
Health care is NOT! a private for profit business. Healthcare is an essential public service. Like police, and fire. And healthcare is also a human right! PRIVATE FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE IS AN OXYMORON, AND AN IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL PERVERSION OF HEALTHCARE AND HUMAN RIGHTS.
So how do we fix this healthcare disgrace? I believe the fix for Americas healthcare disaster is essentially the same thing that every other developed country in the World has essentially done. “NOT FOR PROFIT, TAX PAYER SUPPORTED, SINGLE PAYER, AUTOMATIC, FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE FOR ALL. Essentially HR676 (enhanced, and expanded medicare for all). Just like every other CIVILIZED! country in the developed World has. There is no other way to truly fix and reform our current disastrous healthcare delivery system.
All Universal health care systems work best when everyone participates. But I know that the healthcare lobby, and some politicians will try and undermine “Not For Profit, Tax payer supported, Single payer, Automatic, Free Universal Healthcare for all” by falsely claiming that it will limit your choice, and require you to participate.
So, I propose that everyone be included in the national plan unless they choose to opt out. If you opt out and need medical care the national plan will insure your provider that they will be reimbursed under the rules for members in the national plan. But those who opted out, and their insurer will be responsible for the FULL! cost to the national plan for providing your care if you or your private insurer fails to reimburse the provider or the national plan in a timely manor to at least the standards of the national plan.
Including reporting you to credit agencies, withholding of taxes, leans, and garnishment of wages for unpaid medical bills. Just like you have now under private for profit healthcare, and private for profit health insurance.
Further, people who opted out will be required to provide proof of financial responsibility for future illness or be required to participate in the national plan. And everyone with children will be required to participate in the national plan. Or provide proof of insurance coverage on each child to the standards of the national plan. It will be against the law to report anyone in the national plan to a credit agency for unpaid medical bills.
Frankly, only a dope would want to opt out of the national plan and opt to keep our current disastrous private for profit medical, and insurance plans. But they will be free to choose. The most important thing is that the vast majority of Americans that want the protection, benefits, and higher quality of a universal national plan have that choice.
You see, one of the most important aspects of a universal healthcare system is easy access, and patient protection. This is accomplished by having a single payer without a conflict of interest in patient care. And by having a payer who has the power to enforce minimum standards of excellence in healthcare delivery for everyone in the plan. This is much of what Medicare does now for senors. “Aeger Primo” (The patient first). Unfortunately in our healthcare system the patient comes last. We are just a peace of meat to them. Cash cows to be slaughtered for profit.
So this is IT! my fellow Americans, My fellow human beings, My fellow World Citizens. And my fellow Cyber Warriors. The time has come. D day. H hour. HEALTHCARE REFORM THIS YEAR! Let no one stand in our way. Contact your representative and tell them you want “Not For Profit, Tax Payer Supported, Single Payer, Automatic, Free Universal healthcare for all. And tell them you want that choice now. Tell them you want President Obama’s budget passed without delay. President Obama’s budget is brilliant. And exactly what is needed now.
President Obama, and his allies will need all the support you can give them. The healthcare lobby will try to take out his people if they can, like they did with Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer. And they will try to neutralize President Obama’s popularity, and political power. Or they will try to take him down someway. Don’t stand for it. If they attack him. Go after them ten times harder and remove them from office. We had an election. And you the people chose President Obama’s leadership, and change agenda. Let no one in government disrespect the will of the American people and remain in office.
To President Obama, his Cabinet, the Congress of the United States, and the Supreme Court. I have noticed for some time a disturbing tendency for key members of your bodies to come down with illness, or medical problems at critical legislative times. This may just be coincidence. But I can tell you that there are a million subtle ways to medically injure someone just by doing nothing when something needs to be done. Or by doing things to someone when nothing needs to be done except to give them reassurance. I know for a fact that there are those that would have no qualms about hurting any of you to preserve our current disgraceful medical status quo.
So, I recommend as a matter of national security that you enlist the help of a friendly power to regularly review, and oversee the medical care you receive from your local regular healthcare providers. Briton, France and many other countries have excellent medical providers. As well as Canada. Briton, and Canada may be less of a language barrier for Americans.
Let’s get this healthcare reform done now my fellow Americans. This year. Take no prisoners.
Very interesting! Seems to me that whether most people like it or not the tyranny of the majority should not be permitted to be activated. Even when lead by our unlawyerly like nonlogically thinking current president and members of congress who express the view and state that action will be taken to nullify the contractual bonuses paid AIG employees.
Mr. Barr, finally the United States may be able to regain the respect of other countries throughout the world by re-examining archaic US foreign policies. Hopefully the shifting tide on U.S-Cuba policy is only the beginning of fundamental political change in Washington.
The red light camaras did their job too well, they stopped the idiots in this city from running red lights at every intersection they get to. When they come down, people will go right back to their bad behavior which is demonstrated at every light that doesn’t have a camara.
A better solution would be to upgrade the traffic light system in this state to synchronize the lights; perhaps then people would not run so many of them. I understand the frustration of having to stop at every intersection because the damn lights are out of synch with each other.
Now if we can get rid of profiling based on skin tone or accent I will believe that progress is being made. Some of the abuses of our 4th amendment rights is apalling. We have become more like despotic 3rd world countries than I would have ever believed. And the scary thing is that so called “conservatives” are marching in lockstep with the government on these abuses.
This may be the first time I have ever agreed with Bob Barr, but a big AMEN. If local officials want to raise money from people who run or misjudge red lights, just be honest about it. If it was not about money, then why were the fines set to be higher than the cost of the service?
Was the collecting jurisdiction ever required to share the generated revenue with the State (who paid for a MAJOR portion of the signal cost) or with the Developer (who may have been required to contribute a significant amount towards the installation cost as part of them being allowed ingress/egress rights) or was the collecting jurisdiction allowed to keep all revenue.
I don’t think that red light cameras should be used for raising revenue. They should be used solely as a prevention tool — the prevention of injuries and death in traffic accidents at intersections.
Did you know that the areas without red light cameras are also the areas that experience the most preventable traffic fatalities? It’s true!
So what was the difference in accident rates with/without the red light cameras? That is the measure of effectiveness we should be examining and discussing!
Atlanta has a long, proud history of five cars going through the red during every cycle, especially on left turn signals. The red light camera conspiracy screwed that up. Shameful.
Seriously, I hate the darn things. I slam on my brakes reflexively now the second the light turns yellow, when often the smarter thing to do would be slip on through.
I read that the one second that the state required to be added to the yellow cut down the number of tickets so that it wasn’t profitable anymore. It sounds like the timing was set to generate revenue. It’s clear that this kind of power is dangerous in the hands of government and even moreso in the hands of private companies who can use the short yellow to get more money.
The studies on whether they actually help reduce accidents have been mixed. They generally do reduce the number of accidents within the intersection, but, at the same time, the number of rear end wrecks from people slamming on the brakes to stop usually increases dramatically, so it’ s a push.
It is nice to see the truth come out. I think that was the gist of Barr’s column-not about whether or not the cameras were wrong, just about the lies that were told as the cameras were put in.
It only a matter of time before the leeches in government latch onto some other form of technology to use to extort our money; excuse me, I mean to protect us for our own safety. How about trying to ticket speeders using the cameras that line the highway, or the soon to be required GPS units in autos for the pay-by-the-mile tax to replace the gas tax, or the triangulation and tracking capability that cellphones already have. Oh and yes, I feel so much safer knowing that my involuntary use of a seat belt or else a fine is being done for my own safety too. Parasites.
What this says is that the cameras worked. The threat of a ticket caused drivers to slow down and exercise more caution and restraint. This, I think, is what Atlanta traffic desperately needs more of. Nowhere else in the world where I have driven have I felt the overwhelming hurry-hurry urgency that I feel here. I know Atlanta has huge ego problems but it doesn’t need to be on the roads. The cameras helped that. But the second thing it showed was that town and cities ARE looking at these things as revenue sources and the only reason they don’t like them is that they were inconsistent or just not producing at all.
THAT is just baloney logic. The cities and towns need to stop looking at every little thing in terms of revenue. Sometimes you need to do things because they need to be done, not just because they bring in a dollar. It’s not all about the money. And yet the cities and towns are standing up and saying that is literally all they care about. Lives, safety, slowing down traffic, improving quality of life, hah! Revenue. Period.
The truth is, there are a lot more towns in this state than there need to be, and a lot more counties too. There needs to be wholesale local government consolidation across the state which would cut costs of operating government simply by putting a lot of these bureaucrats out of work.
Thank you Mr. Barr. the notion the we can strong arm Iran into anything is just silly. His attempts to reshape the nature of our dealings with Iran changes the way in which we are viewed in the rest of the Middle East. If nothing else, it allows us to retake the moral high ground and that is huge when it caome to what we can present to the rest of the world. As much as we hate to admit it, The worlds opion matters….
unfortunately prior attempts to “talk” with Iran failed. Jimmy Carter tried and failed (as he always does, miserably). Reagan tried. Clinton tried. Even George W was willing to engage if Iran suspended their rush for a nuclear weapons program, but that failed. While diplomacy is always a preference to threats or war, we need a basis to believe it has even minimal chances of success when if we wait Iran will get their nuke and create an arms race with her Arab neighbors….
I wonder which of Shirley’s friends got the 8 million bucks….you can bet that it wasn’t a professional marketing firm….they wouldn’t put out such garbage.
We should be Constitutionally adherent and avoid these endless foreign entanglements…especially within the Middle East. This would encompass immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq & Afghanistan, & ending U.S. taxpayer funding of Israel & all other Middle East nations. Let them sort it out amongst themselves, and let the U.S. focus on improving our economy (via abolishment of the private Fed, IRS & a return to the gold standard/end of fiat currency).
One columnist wants Obama to end hunger in the world: Now Barr wants Obama to appease Iran. Obama can’t even get his own house in order. Speculation about his ability to do anything other than orate is ridiculous
Mr. Smith, there is unfortunately, one gaping oversight in your argument. The fact remains that the current “greedy / for profit” system is equally balanced by the competitive drive to provide better care. Now that the government is itself a huge, greedy, for-profit business itself, giving it full reign over healthcare would instantaneously turn the healthcare system into a greedy, for-profit monopoly. The government can’t even compete in the mail delivery sector; what makes you think the government could handle healthcare? It’s an absolute joke! Obama is already talking about not covering combat wounds to save the government money. THAT is government healthcare for you. here is a letter from a danish man concerning their socialized medicine system:
Better? No choice you mean.
First setting this straight: social healthcare shouldn’t be paid by the sales taxes, but by our forced health insurance which is also some kind of tax if it’s forced. If you don’t pay it the police comes for you.
About the quality: I can’t believe any Dutchman like me still goes to Dutch healthcare. Sure, it costs a little, but in the surrounding countries you at least have choice and quality.
Know that we do not have permission to just enter a hospital here, we first have to get permission from the doctor we’re assigned to. Assignments are based on the area you live, and you can very well be assigned to a doctor that mistakes a heart failing for stress, or one that refuses to give you permission to visit a hospital for checking until its too late.
Then there’s the problem of waiting lists – with the government having the healthcare in hands there’s no need of competition, and even with critical problems that require immediate attention (like cancer, or even brain/heart injuries) they’ll gladly let you wait for a month. The mistakes made in healthcare are plentiful – I can’t count the victims of such mistakes made on relatives in the past ten years on one hand anymore. Some of which ended in a fatality while the problem was something that never should’ve caused that (appendicitis, refusing to look or operate in hospital until it bursted open – but you don’t have any chance or choice to go elsewhere).
Also know that the USA *health insurances* aren’t higher than here! Healthcare quality definitely is though, both in skill, technology and friendliness. Yes, they actually treat you as a customer instead of acting like a superior. At least, they did when I injured myself on a trip to New York. And you can even choose wether you want insurance or not, unlike here, where we’re forced to pay insurance and don’t even have a choice in where to go to. Now, for the quality we get we’re paying way too much money IMO. And you’re suggesting now that taxes are also going to healthcare, apart from the forced ‘insurance’ money. I sure hope this is not the case.
If you really believe our healthcare is good, so be it. But I can’t stress enough to go elsewhere for something as imporant as your well being. Belgium is much better already and they’ll accept people without government/doctor permission. Getting to know the right people also helps. Sure, it may cost money, but it’s a small price to pay for choice, especially if it’s about your life. Just to illustrate the difference: a full cardiac (heart) research with echoes and a week of recording (device) costs about $120 in Belgium, so yeah, that is very manageable. That’s what saying ‘hi’ to the doctor would cost here. They can afford it due to the monopoly and no one objects because it’s automatically paid by the forced ‘insurance’. God I sure hope it isn’t so rotten already that there is tax money going towards it on top of what’s already paid by the forced insurance.
So, to you USA people: Be very, VERY wary about government influences. More intervention is definitely needed in the current crisis, but after it, they have to go back to controlling only the necessary again unless you like the idea of losing basic rights like choosing a doctor/hospital yourself. Also note that takes here near the 70% of your income: 40-60% wage tax (depending on how much you earn, independents/undertakers) pay full), 19% VAT/sales tax on all non-food products you buy, property taxes, car taxes, forced insurances, damn… it might even be more. And what do you get back for it? One of the lowest quality education systems in the western world, health care that chooses for you and isn’t too good either, city security that utterly fails in every way possible… No, where I live it’s everyone for himself. The only difference with 2nd world countries is that you spent 70% on tax while getting no more. Perhaps even less, I have an extremely good experience with East European doctors, and in those countries you’re allowed to arm yourself to keep yourself safe. Not that there’s any control on the weapon law where I live (unfortunately).
At least I can now choose my insurance since two years instead of being stuck with the back then forced ‘freelancer/independent/undertaker’ insurance (if I had a normal job I would have gotten the cheap job insurance before). So now I at least also have an insurance that covers my dentist (like the job insurance) and it costs way less too.
“Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people.” – John Adams
Naive B O is now discovering reality, what conservatives have known for years. We can’t deal with rogue and radical nations. President B O extended the hand and Iran took off the gloves, only to reveal a set of brass knuckles. Iran will NEVER make peace with the US until the US abandons Israel. When the U S does that, we are a doomed country.
JMHO.
While there is no denying that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a loose canon and a radical anti-semite, it is well to consider a few facts. Iranians endured for over thirty years the increasingly repressive regime of Shah Mohammad Pahlavi, who this country backed financially and militarily. Iran also fought off a full scale invasion by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, who once again this country backed both financially and militarily. The resulting war lasted 8 years at a cost of about one million Iranian casualties, including an estimated 200,000 civilian deaths. Finally, Iran is a signator of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty while both Israel and India, with whom this country shares nuclear technology, are not. It is neither unpatriotic nor unreasonable to weigh these facts in pusuit of constructive diplomacy.
The war in Iraq was much bigger than the majority of the world seems to realize. Not only was the purpose to stabilize Iraq and bring the country into the world, but also to ashphyxiate the Iranian economy. The Iranian military is no match for the U.S. However, waging conventional war against Iran would be very diffucult due to the Iranian geography and proximity to Russia. Iran has coveted Iraq and the geographic advantages it has for centuries. The sweet crude oil resources would be a bonus. Yes, Iran has oil but it is sour and can only be refined by a few countries(the U.S. is one). The Iranian economy has been contracting for years. Unemployment is rumoured to be 20% or higher. Only 40% – 50% of the population is Persian. The rest of the population consists of ethnic groups that have been persecuted for years. You can’t support terroism without money. Eventually, the mullahs will destroy their economy. At that point, they mey be weak enough to be ousted by a restless populace that has had enough.
The other option is not so pleasant. Presdient Obama will have a tough decision on his hands if the situation continues on its present course.
Where does Obama think the conversations should start? Please don’t wipe Israel off the map? Or, Please believe in the Holocaust? Or, please don’t bomb kill any more American soldiers? Or, please don’t sell Iraq insurgents more roadside bombs? Or, please don’t provide more rockets for Hamas and Hezbollah to launch helter-skelter into Israeli citizens?
Where do you start, Bob?
These ragheads never pass an opportunity to attack the US and our allies. They make no bones about their mission from Allah, and their “peaceful religion” to kill all infidels (pigs).
Is it beyond comprehension, Bob, that Iran would like to kill all Americans, Christians, Jews, and any other flavor of their own religion they don’t agree with? Is it possible that this theocracy is so deeply intertwined with political and international policy that centuries-old writings by a rag salesman and child molester, Muhammad, that they will be at war with ANYONE opposed to his teachings?
So, tell me Bob. Where does one begin in talking to a nutcase like Ahmadinejad?
Wasn’t it just last week Obla-bla-ma reached out to Cuba, only to have them threaten to bring in Soviet bombers into this Hemisphere?
Why not learn from centuries of history, Bob, and understand that what Obla-bla-ma did–in their society— is construed as a sign of WEAKNESS and a crack in our resolve—to be taken advantage of by Iran et al.
Suggestion: Stay on Liberterian issues, and leave international affairs to Buchanan, Hanson, and others who can incorporate history and religion into the equation.
Otherwise, you look the fool.
Bob, You never cease to amaze me, reason in the midst of confusion. I have always thought that you truly had the American people’s interest front and center.
Keep up the good work. Enough with the “my way or highway” crowd. You cannot expect dialog by giving orders.
Obama has good intentions I think. He sees that particular former strategies have been less than successful. I want him to succeed in this endeavor in a way(hopefully peaceful) that is truly beneficial for the US , in the long term. So we don’t have to deal with it anymore. That said, the people running countries like Iran today, are pragmatic with respect to their ongoing need for power. They KNOW if they don’t appease the more radical right wingers of their supporters, they will more than likely end up taking a dirt nap. 1 of the questions is, how long does the US wait for real substantive positive results? Or what has to happen for us to respond militarily?
The true answer will come, if we are lucky, when the USA no longer requires Middle Eastern oil for day to day functions. The week this happens, Iran, Iraq, and the rest of the oil barrons near the Strait of Hormuz become much less relevant. Once we stop buying their product, a huge money spigot will get shut off for them and they might have to change their international public policies.
There’s really only 2 ways for it to end. 1) Nuke them into extinction, rendering the US the largest mass murderers to ever walk the planet. 2) Get completely off their oil rendering them the largest country in the world whose only resource is SAND.
Kamby,
You hit the nail on the head. Not only would it make the mid-east less relevant but it would stop funding for terrorists. I believe there must be some alternative to petroleum. If we could turn our attention and resources to a viable alternative we could find a way. Ethanol is not the answer. If we could find a way to turn kudzu and garbage into fuel that might work. We have plenty of that. That’s kind of tongue-in-cheek, but still…
I think congress should publish a list of all homeowners who required govt help with their mortgage. If any of these homeowners ever experience good fortune, I think all citizens should chase them down and get money back. OR
I think all civil servants who got bonuses at work last year should give them back since our govt has a Trillion dollar deficit.
If this idea moves forward, let’s also charge the Repubs for the cost of the Iraq war! They went in on trumped up issues and had no budget or new revenue to pay for it!
One solution is to ask for the bonuses back, and then investigate those who didn’t return it for fraud and marketing tainted assets. That is within their contracts!!!!
What a fantastic idea! If these congressmen, who voted on legislation which specifically approved these bonuses, had been working for a real business they would have been fired! They are incompetent liars, who couldn’t make it in the real world with a real job. If they really believed that people should take responsiblilty for their own mistakes, and that those most able should pay their “fair share” (see VP Biden), then they should apologize to the American people and pay up. What these congressman would rather do is create a smoke screen around their own culpability, and wrongly accuse other people, who have worked under a contract approved by these same congressman, of being greedy. In Wikipedia, they should post pictures of Sen Dodd and Sen Frank under the word “hypocrisy”.
The Greeks of 3000 years past never trusted their leaders beyond 4 years of public service. Will “We The People” take action during the next election ? Not likely.
I work for AIG – whenever I hear someone complaining about the $165M in bonus’ I point out that there are approx. 165M who pay taxes; then I give them $1 and tell them to STFU and to never complain again since they have been paid in full!
mom@1:30PM, consider yourself fortunate that you have a job that is funded by tax-payers’ money. Were it not for us hapless saps that are tax-payers, your business would be in the sewer like the rest of the economy. Get off your soap-box for AIG and appreciate where your salary is coming from…..US.
The best thing to do would be to institute the Fair Tax and get rid of the 77,000 page tax code we now have. Then one simple law that if a publicly owned company is losing money then NO bonuses will be paid to any employee. Problem solved!
The bonus should be recopupled from the employees and former employees of the division that created the mess – the derivatives side. The many divisions of AIG which were profitable, and where the employees had legally binding contracts, should not be penalized for the scandalous operation of one operating unit by having to return legally earned compensation.
Public servants generally cannot get bonuses, even a turkey or ham at Thanksgiving. In GA all teachers can “accept” is a free pass to go to home sports games (and then it is because they want us to come for crowd control.) And maybe some talcum power at Christmas from one of our kids.
I agree that money losing (and dole-accepting) firms should be regulated on the pay, benefits, and bonuses they can offer. The AIG squirrels should be given IOUs for AFTER their company repays the taxpayers (as if).
I am sure most of the AIG employees worked very hard for some promised rewards above their huge salary. The fact is that AIG failed. The taxpayer is billed. Do they teach that at executive school? Many Americans worked hard and their company failed. They got nothing!
Just because you receive a so called good education does not grant you success during failure. That is what I see from the management of these large companies! The executives and managers expect huge payoffs even if their company fails. The employees of AIG stated they worked hard and the company profiited from their department. But the company failed. So they thinks the company should reward them regardless of the company failure. I do not get it. If the company thrives then the employee thrives. Someone should revisit executive colleges and see what their institution is teaching? But you know what is humorous is that the managers are behaving like AIG is a department of the government….OMG.
All this proves that Obama is completely in over his head. God help us all. All this administration wants to do is subsidize failure. They give money to people and businesses who cannot get out of their own way, but then they attack success (Exxon/Big Pharm/ Walmart). TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) is clueless.
All these after the fact offerings are amazing. Retroactive solutions are easy, here is another. Since many are unhappy with the big O, kick him out and the country can hold another election and whoever is able to B.S. the public more than anyone else will be the next entertainer in chief until the public realizes incompetence in administrative governance. Promises of various courses of action mean zero when anyone with a functioning brain SHOULD know that they will never occur due to illegality, lack of funds, Congress, lobbyists, and all the other competing money grabbers. The only thing that I know for certain that has occured and will to all is death!
The “us against the world” attitude of clueless belligerence doesn’t work and usually makes our foreign relations even worse.
Don’t like Iran? Think they’re run by lunatics? Then IGNORE THEM. Don’t deal with them, trade with them, or pay them any attention at all. If they start attacking allies, pursue containment and sanctions as needed.
On the other hand, if they just want to smack-talk about Israel… who cares?
Ask Bob about term limits, he got termed out not long ago.
Whoever is still feigning indignant about the AIG bonus’ should read this- and think about the alternatives: abrogate the original contracts (scary) or selectively tax such a specifically targeted subset of the populace (very scary).
Bob Barr’s ad hominem rant about AIG bonus’: if there’s one thing I dislike more than the withered intellectual rigor of an ad hominem it’s Barr’s stupid mustache…
Nothing new here. Congress & senate have long held two sets of standards: one for the unwashed masses, and one for those who matter, namely themselves. This nation, financially, is absolutely no different from an alcoholic or drug addict, meaning it hasn’t hit bottom yet, so it can’t begin to recover. AIG, GM and the banks who are in the TARP program should have been allowed to fail and dissolve. Would this create an additional burden due to additional unemployment? Yes, but the principle behind allowing them to fail would preserve trust, trust that government would not meddle in the private sector of capitalism. When companies such as AIG, GM, among others, come to D.C. looking for help, it implies that they have failed at producing a product/service geared for profit and their books are now in the red, hence they need financial help. What it really means is the simplistic message has been sent: management and labor both failed in their objectives and goals, and because of the differences, the company is in the red. Often, those differences are clearly defined, sometimes not so much. Why should government allow itself to become immersed in problems like this? Because, in the world of our current government structure, they actually believe they can solve problems. No one in D.C. today has problem solving skills. That is clear. These companies should be allowed to fail. New ones, with a quality philosophy of what is required of management and labor, will eventually take their place.
I find it amazing that most politicians are Lawyers and yet they voted for this package without reading it.When has a Lawyer not read a contract over several times before signing off on it?
This just goes to show you how little regard our leaders have for us.Everyone in our country should not vote for an incumbant next election, this will really send a message to Washington.
The Casablanca reference is a bit over-played, but your screed is otherwise spot on. When I fantasize about a more Constitutionally driven government, I wonder why more Sentors/Congressmen are no impeached, terminated or otherwise removed from office for failure to achieve stated goals/objectives? Most private sector working stiffs are employed by virtue of a contract or agreement (verbal or written). Politicians take an oath of office, which avers, among other things to “…support and defend the Consitution…” So, is not de-regulating in essence a failure in one’s sworn duty to “regulate commerce”? At the end of the day, the paper trail for this shameless money grab (and when the dust settles, those paying attention will see it for what it is) leads to Washington, DC (both parties). All this “sock and outrage” coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and Capitol Hill is just a smoke screen. I’m a populist and I am outraged by the de-regulation of the derivatives and credit default swap markets; and I bear no animosity (or even envy) of the private sector worker bees who played by the rules (the rules changed by Congress/President). As I stated last week, this snowball started rolling down the hill when Bill Clinton (sincere, or not) wanted to eliminate what he perceived as racial bias (”red lining”) in the mortgage market. We’re not in this mess without Congressional (see: Financial Sector lobbyists) consent. As far as the AIG bonuses go, whether recipients are taxes at 25-35% or the 90% proposed by Congress, we’re talking about pennies on the dollar when compared to the $175 billion we’ve pumped into AIG. As the saying goes; that monkey is out of the cage. I’m no good at being noble, but it doesn’t take much to realize the problems of the American taxpayer do not amount to a hill of beans in this mess.
Recall the Movie The Hunt for Red October. The part where the aid to the President said “I am a politican which means I am a liar and a cheat which means when I am not kissing babies I am stealing their suckers.
Anti-redlining laws caused the housing bubble and crash? So a law saying that banks can’t refuse to give loans just because the property is in a certain part of town did all this?
And the anything goes attitude in the mortgage industry had nothing to do with it? Or de-regulating banks so that they can invest in riskier commodities than before? Or allowing fly-by-night mortgage companies to write loans to unqualified buyers and sell them off as low risk investmments?
Thanks for reporting this, Mr. Barr. If the people can do anything to stop this, please let us know. I thought that is why we have representatives in the legislature, but I certainly don’t feel represented.
look at KY! Look at other states that use CASTPER or PMP’s. Sure it helps however there is a Bill in Florida that does NOT put a patients name, home address and medical records on a WEBSITE! This system used only BioMetric’s like eye or finger print in place of personal patient information! Anything on the web is public! http://www.BioScriptRx.com is NOT a website and no patient information leave the doctor or pharmacy! EVER!
are you the GEICO caveman or just a run of the mill caveman (who cannot read/comprehend written words)? I did not say the “anti-red lining” legislation caused this. What I said (wrote) was:
this snowball started rolling down the hill when Bill Clinton (sincere, or not) wanted to eliminate what he perceived as racial bias (”red lining”) in the mortgage market. We’re not in this mess without Congressional (see: Financial Sector lobbyists) consent.
The banking industry/Wall Street simply looked for the silver lining (how can we make money) in Clinton’s efforts to “regulate” the mortgage application/approval process and basically the banks said; “if you are going to force us to change our lending practices, you must make it easier (less oversight) for us to sell insurance on these iffy loans…” And thus the de-regulation of credit default swaps and derivative, etc.
So, is this all Clinton’s mess? No, but my point was it is not a Liberal/Conservative mess. It is a bi-partisan mess. The special interests (banks, Wall Street) etc.; a/k/a as the folks who continue to funnel money to Congress (both parties) don’t care about libs or cons. They care about legislation which allowed them to turn Wall Street into a casino.
You’ve got it wrong – the well being index isn’t just about ‘happiness’ it’s truly about overall well-being. The survey indicates if people are thriving, merely surviving or if they are struggling, and how they are dealing with their situation. This isn’t just a happiness meter, it is a combined measure of physical, mental, social and emotional factors that make up total well being. And another fact you have incorrect – Healthways is not a provider of insurance, they are a company that provides disease management and healthy lifestyle programs and coaching.
You want to defend yourself against armed lunatics? So do we. And it’s the gun-fanatics who are the “armed lunatics” in question. We’re defending ourselves through legislation, keeping as many of these nuts disarmed as possible.
Given that gun owners are twice as likely as non-gun owners to die from gunshot wounds, I’ve never quite figured out just who the gun nuts are defending themselves from — each other?
Copyleft…Your legislation will only keep law abiding gun owners like myself from protecting ourselves. A criminal on the prowl does not care one iota about gun laws.
Slowly, one by one, our rights are being taken away from us. When do we stand up to this government that is supposed to be working for us? When did WE start working for the government.
When does it stop? When all the woman are wearing burkas and not allowed to leave the house?
I never have understood the rationale that arming citizens is a panacea for stopping or reducing gun violence. In south Alabama the man killed 10 and then himself before the armed law enforcement professionals could stop him (seems like an awful lot of these rampage perpetrators kill themselves). In Atlanta Brian Nichols killed two law enforcement officers – at least one of them armed – before surrendering. In Oakland last week four police officers were shot to death in pursuit of an armed suspect. Sometimes I think people like Mr. Barr as a kid watched too much of Matt Dillon and Little Joe Cartwright, i.e, “just put a gun in my hands and I’ll take care of any situation”; unrealistic fantasies that appeal to some testosterone-laden males. Actually, I think, if people start carrying guns in the federal parks, it won’t deter those who mean harm; the perpetrators will just shoot from ambush rather than chance confronting an armed citizen face-to-face.
RIDICULOUS GROUPS LIKE BRADY AND PEOPLE LIKE COPYLEFT ARE SIMPLY SIGNS OF OUR COUNTRIES DEMISE! IF, IF, THE ACLU HAD ANY CREDIBILITY OR INTEGRITY, THEY WOULD SUE THESE GROUPS, AND, THE VARIOUS LIBERAL JUDGES WHO MAKE THESE ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS RULINGS! THE SUPREME COURT, IF, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN PACKED ONTO THE BENCH BY LIBERALS RULED WITH ANY COMMON SENSE, WOULD THROW OUT ALL THESE UNAMERICAN SUITS AND GROUPS! IT IS NOT THOSE WHO HAVE CARRY PERMITS WHO ARE THE PROBLEM! IT IS THE CRIMINALS WHO OBEY NO LAWS AND GROUPS LIKE BRADY! CHECK THE FBI STATISTICS! IN ALL THE YEARS SINCE CWP’S CAME INTO EFFECT, THERE HAS BEEN ONE, ONE INCIDENT OF A CWP HOLDER DOING SOMETHING WRONG WITH HIS WEAPON!!! AND THOUSANDS WHERE A CWP HOLDER HAD PREVENTED A RAPE, ASSAULT OR MURDER BY HAVING HIS WEAPON!!!
We have a simple solution to this problem. Arm yourselves and defend yourselves even if it means breaking the law. I would rather be alive and a law breaker than a dead law abiding citizen.
While the premise of needing an EIS for the gun law is ludicrous, the more important issue is why would anyone go out of their way to go to a Federal Park to shoot someone! Is this using the same database from GA on election fraud?(I support voter ID, but have never heard of a specific related crime at a polling station in GA.)
There are trained Park Rangers who can be contacted to assist the people if they are threatened. Otherwise it would be the wild west.
Copyleft, are you insane? It’s not law-abidding citizens you see on the news daily robbing places and shooting innocent and hardworking store clerks daily in this city. The only way to protect yourself from the out-of-control crime these days is to self protect with a legal and permitted gun. Crazy people like the man that killed the innocent people at the nursimg home should be shot dead on the spot, just like the two thugs that shot the store clerk last week. I bet those two guys were hard working, upstanding young men, yeah right. Face it, this is Atlanta, a city full of thugs running around with hoodies on looking for a victim. I for one may be a victim someday, you never know what will happen but I won’t go down without a fight.
Copyleft and Nan obviously have very little regard for their fellow citizens. To them that neighbor down the street with the NRA bumpersticker is the one to watch out for…not the transient raking leaves for a hit of crack. But I digress…protect yourself as you see fit. Just allow me (under the Constitution, btw) to do the same.
Turkey Slayer – The proper phrase is “I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.” Yes, being alive to defend your right to be alive is superior to being dead and the government wiping their hands of any complicity through their rights-violating legislation.
I’ve hiked thousands of miles over the years in both State and Federal forests… never have I needed a gun. Nor will I ever. I’ve seen bears before and they’ve entered my campsite. Know what happened? Nothing. You are more likely to get killed or shot going to a gas station compared to going camping or hiking. Know what statistic you left out Bob? More people are killed in our state and national parks by hunters every year (accident shaxident…just ask Dick Chency)…then have been killed by murderers or wildlife in over the past 20 years.
Want to keep our parks safe? Ban hunting in them. Hunters kill people.
Road Scholar – What is the phone number for the ranger? and how long do you think it will take him/her to come file the report on your death?
If all of you folks are too afraid of yourselves or of guns to protect yourself, then fine. What gives you the right to take away my right to keep myself alive? Since when did you become god, or the elected officials you cheer on? You fail to realize that you too benefit from thousands of individuals carrying legally in society. When a criminal knows that anyone might be carrying, it is an implicit deterent, even if you don’t have a gun. Yes, you can come up with a million ways in which a criminal can still kill you even if you have a gun. It just becomes THAT much easier to do if he knows you are a law abiding citizen and definitely don’t have one.
Again, please explain how my carrying a gun in any way violates your rights. And please do explain by what right do you believe it is ok to take away might right to preserve or defend my life??? By the way, the Supreme Court has ruled very clearly that it is NOT the reponsibility of law enforcement to protect me in any way.
@Copyleft
Claiming that more people people who own guns die from gunshot wounds is ridiculous. YES it’s true, but it’s because suicide is the highest cause of gun related deaths in the nation. You should also note that many more people commit suicide in the US than are murdered. Your little factoid is taken out of context and is completely irrelevant. Or, if you really wanted to save lives you might try taking the money devoted to anti-gun lobbying and devote it to treating depression. If you guys did that then the NRA would disappear and their money could go to curing cancer or something else that’s actually useful. The fact is that out of 2.4 MILLION deaths in 2005 (the last year where stats are given by the CDC) guns killed less than 30,000 people total and wounded under 70,000 (That includes all uses both legitimate and criminal, so when a cop shoots a bad guy it’s included in those statistics). That sounds like a lot, except cancer killed hundred of thousands and cirrhosis killed tens of thousands. Cars killed almost 50,000 and wounded over a million people. If you want to talk about things that kill people, guns are pretty low in the list. In 1994 (the time such a study was done) 110,000 crimes were stopped by armed citizens, that number isn’t from some lobby group, that number is from the DoJ. 1994 was the last year crime rose in our country before falling sharply. By the way, crime continued to fall sharply even as more than a million new guns were purchased every year and concealed laws proliferated across our country.
I guess what I’m saying is that you’re an idiot who hasn’t done their research and likes the convenient easy to chew sound bites you get off the brady campaign to end gun ownership (because it doesn’t stop gun violence) website.
@David
It’s not a panacea, it’s a chance you won’t have if you’re not armed. You said it yourself, law enforcement response times are long and getting longer as city and state government reduce police services. At the same time crime goes up because of the deteriorating economic situation. Why don’t you mention Pearl, Mississippi? You know, where a vice principal recovered his gun from his car and stopped the rampage? Why don’t you mention the numerous articles here in the AJC where a person defend their home or person from criminals? How about the fact that most cops I’ve met are appreciative of the fact that I carry a gun and support the carry rights of citizens? I don’t think anyone who carries believes they can simply carry a gun and everything will be ok, that shows ignorance on your part. It takes training, knowledge, and maturity to carry a gun and use it properly. It’s not for everyone and I’m ok with that, but I don’t think it’s right for you to decide that it’s not right for me either. I’d rather have the chance and take the risk than not. You rely on the police, I’ll rely on myself.
I see the confusion continues about some imaginary distinction between “law-abiding citizens” and “criminals.” They’re the exact same people, folks. Even the same color, hard as that may be to believe.
The biggest gun-related risk to a typical suburban resident is his armed neighbor, friend, or family member–not a mythical “career criminal who ignores gun laws and seeks out middle-class suburbanites to rob and victimize and violate the wimminfolk, bwa-ha-ha-ha!”
So yes, the neighbor with the pickup and gun rack and NRA sticker IS a more serious threat than the homeless guy raking leaves. Because everyone carrying a gun is school, church, or mall shooting spree just waiting to happen.
The line between “law abiding gun owners” and “deranged mass-murderers and career criminals” doesn’t exist. They’re YOU.
I think the anti-gun crowd is missing the point. Take yourself as the example. If I gave you a gun, would you feel compelled to go shoot someone just because you possess the means to do so? Of course not. You could fill Philips Arena with 20,000 responsible people, all carrying guns, and not have one incident.
Why is so hard to understand that evil people will perform evil acts, be it with a gun, knife, a 2×4? If evil is ingrained within some, and they cannot be reasoned with, then by all means, give us the means to defend ourselves.
WOW copyleft…do you want to go ahead and put a match to the Constitution? There is a very real distinction to criminals and law abiding citizens. I suppose we should castrate all men because there is no distinction between law abiding citizens and the criminal pediphile? Wake up! You can not just toss out the constitution because you don’t want the ability to protect yourself and your family…I will put my families safety in my own care before I push it off on someone else.
Joe: Tell me what’s unconstitional about this… given that the Supreme Court has upheld our right to regulate gun ownership (a “well regulated militia,” remember?) every single time it’s been challenged.
Regulating gun ownership is the epitome of Constitutional process.
Please provide the statistics that support your argument. There isn’t any evidence that you’re correct when I review the CDC mortality statistics on the subject unless you’re counting suicides. All told, police shootings included there are around 30,000 gun related deaths in a year. That sounds like a lot, but we’re a nation of 300 million people and two and a half million of us die every year. Over half of those deaths are suicides, less than 10% are accidents and the rest are homicides. The number of homicides include legitimate shootings by cops which are just a few hundred. In the grand scheme of things you’re more like to die of cirrhosis of the liver than a gunshot wound.
You fail to point out that there are as many guns in this country as there are people and that something like 40-50 million households own guns. So the people you speak of as “lunatics” are actually a larger demographic than some minorities. You also fail to point out that the assault weapons ban (which I’m sure you would say reduced crimes with assault weapons by 40%, just like the brady campaign talking point says) only reduced overall gun crime by 2% according to the DoJ and that in the year before its enactment crime began a freefall that continued to 2005, which it hit its lowest point in almost 40 years. During this span of time concealed carry laws proliferated across the nation and now only a handful of states deny qualified citizens the right to carry. The truth is Copyleft, that we’re all around you.. carrying every day. The best information I can find on Georgia carry permits indicates that there are tend of thousands of applicants every year and many years applications for concealed carry permits exceed 100,000. That means with years of permits being issued there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people with concealed carry permits in Georgia alone. Tell me, copyleft, where is the gun fueled holocaust? Oh right, you just repeat the statistics you’re fed without any real understanding of the facts.
Copyleft is cracking me up and he obviously is a product of the public/government school system (say you’re a female, or that you’ve stepped foot into a private school, and I’ll call you a liar!)!!! Too funny, his “interpretation!” OOOOoooooohhhh…..legislation! THAT will REALLY scare murderers and rapists who use the north Ga. trails such as the north Ga. mountains and the Silver Comet Trail to find female victims! According to CopyLeft, if Meredith or the woman who died on the SCT had had guns on them, THEY would have been the dangerous ones! Oh, please tell me you didn’t go to school in Georgia!!
Umm, Nan, you’ve been asked to come up with your source….hiding??
Road Scholar – Have you come up with that handy-dandy number we can all use to contact our friendly, 5-mile away park ranger while being attacked?? And if the attacker has our phone, or doesn’t give us a 3-minute time-out to call the friendly park ranger while being attacked, do you have any advice for us regarding what to do?
Do any of you think Meredith might be alive if she had had a gun? Or are you saying it is her fault for not giving the attacker a time-out and calling a magic number to get a park ranger beamed down to her spot where she was ultimately decapitated?
Seriously? Copyleft and Road Scholar and Nan? You don’t think Meredith should have been allowed to have a gun? You are all saying (esp CL) that Meredith would have been dangerous if she had had a gun?
Thank you to all of you who are literate, who know how to read the Constitution, and who work several jobs so that your kids don’t have to attend CopyLeft’s government school.
Copyleft…the Constitution says a well regulated militia, the very next line says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Nan said: “Given that gun owners are twice as likely as non-gun owners to die from gunshot wounds, I’ve never quite figured out just who the gun nuts are defending themselves from — each other?”
So, if Meredith had had a gun on her park trail, she would have been a gun nut, and she would have been dangerous?
Road Scholar said: “There are trained Park Rangers who can be contacted to assist the people if they are threatened. Otherwise it would be the wild west.”
So Meredith should have called the Park Ranger?
Copyleft said: “I see the confusion continues about some imaginary distinction between “law-abiding citizens” and “criminals.” They’re the exact same people, folks.”
So, if the law had allowed Meredith to have a gun, you would have eyed her as a criminal? This quote of yours is perhaps the most laughable of all.
Copyleft said: “The line between “law abiding gun owners” and “deranged mass-murderers and career criminals” doesn’t exist.”
Ask anyone who knew Meredith, or Jennifer Ewing, and they’ll tell you differently, I bet.
You all ask why anybody would actually need a gun in a national park. I’ll admit that one in a million people would never actually need one. However, just remember that man who killed God-knows how many people on hiking trails in North Georgia over many years time. I’m sure one of his victims would have loved to have been armed.
I think the anti-gun crowd is missing the point. I bought my gun under the assumption that I’ll never have to use it. I want it to sit and collect dust. However, if the day does come where my life or my family is put in danger I will be happy knowing that I have the greatest possible advantage to protect them. Ask yourself this…if someone invades your home and you’re tied up watching your wife being raped I can promise you that the thought of you having a gun will enter your head. You won’t just sit and passively accept it.
I am not worried about Legal gun carrying citizens having a gun in our parks. The ones you need to worry about are the bad guys who have no regard to laws. I was almost mugged one time. If it were not for my handgun, eith my wife or myself may have been hurt or worse. I welcome the sight of a person open carrying a handgun. He will be your friend. A person who is up to no good will always try to hide his intentions.
I think these responses make it very clear who in our society is the REAL threat to our personal safety – Road Scholar, Copyleft, Nan, and Saul Good (and everyone like them). We would still be living under a British thumb if it were up to them.
Again, by what right do you get to decide whether I live or die?
Who made you people god?
The constitution is in plain english. The Declaration of Independence is written in the same clear english. My rights are inalienable. They are mine because I exist. They do not come from government, they come from my creator (whomever or whatever that might be). First among them is LIFE. That does not negate my personal responsibility. Once I step over that line and violate YOUR rights, then fine. Up until that point, keep your “divine” wisdom away from MY RIGHT TO LIFE!
Are we going to ban knives too? After reading how the nutcase in MA decapitated his sister after stabbing his other sister to death, perhaps we should move to ban knives too. Had someone had a gun at that scene, perhaps two innocent people would still be alive today and a gravedigger would have a job to do today. The ciminals running around today pick their targets. They’re much less likely to run up to a pickup truck with an older while male who has an NRA sticker and a Support the Troops decal; they know we’ll blast them to hell and back and still be home for supper.
Gun control means hitting your target. I think everyone should have the right to be armed and ready to blow someones head off if threatened and in danger. If more people carried weapons think of all the criminals we could knock off and not end up having to pay more taxes to keep them fed and watered in jail.
What I find most amuzing about the anti-gun croud is that they personally don’t want to be in a position to have to kill or injure someone in order to defend their lives, but they are more than happy to be paying someone else to do their killing for them. They are not pacifists nor do they even pretend to follow such a principled journey through life.
They are the same folks who condemn Hitler’s violent actions, but conveniently ignore the fact that two of his first laws were to ban private schooling and gun ownership. Just aske the jews in the Warsaw ghetto how successful they would have been if not for their conscious and willful refusal to obey when told to disarm.
Just look at the violent crime rate in both England and Australia since virtually every gun was “banned” in those countries. Sky high.
There is no point in arguing with these types. They do not care about the constitution. They do not care about your life. They are comfortable with their complicit subservience to the authorities for the so-called promise of safety. Time and time again history has shown their type to be on the receiving end of everything bad. But then how would a wolf survive without sheep to feed on?
All of you people who rely on law enforcement to keep you safe should remember a few things (1) the cop carries a gun for his (or her) protection, not yours; (2) people licensed to carry a firearm are statistically more law abiding than the rest of the general public and law enforcment officers (didn’t 3 rogue APD officers MURDER an innocent, law abiding citizen a couple of years ago?), and (3) when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Your Founding Fathers sought to protect your right to bear arms and defend yourself. They had a reason. Wake up people.
i have a winter handgun and a summer handgun depending on how i need to dress to conceal the weapon. i take it everywhere regardless of the law – SEE KUERG, 11:20AM
I have fire insurance on my house, yet I hope I never need to use that insurance. Does that make me a pyromaniac just waiting to burn my house as well as yours? If my house ever catches fire, I will be glad that I have insurance! I hope to never have to use my gun either, but if the need arises, I will be glad that I have it as well.
Copyleft and Nan – Try to be a little more self sufficient. Do not rely on the government to step in and save you. You’re a human being; not a passive, submissive Paris Hilton style dog. I hope you never confront evil or insanity, because if you ever do- you’ll surely wish you were armed and not the pushover that you are.
What an astounding array of ignorance displayed here, in those wishing to quash the self-responsible right to bear a firearm in protection of self, family, and society. Horrendous, really. But to return to the National Park System and the associated firearms ban as the primary subject: please remember three things: 1) the “ban” was/is not that old; 2) the effect on NPS crime was/is nil 3) the only for-sure, concrete result was the ridiculous criminalization of those exercising their self-responsible right to bear a firearm, even while in transit as for example, while traveling the Blue Ridge Parkway or Rt 441 through the Smokys, hopscotching across NPS lands often without designating signs.
I just purchased my first firearm at the Eastman Gun Show in Savannah this weekend. I’ve been properly trained and do not take the responsibility of owning a gun lightly. I’m very glad that I have a S&W .40 to confront home invaders rather than a baseball bat. If you liberals are so afraid of me having a weapon for self defense, then don’t invade my home and you won’t get shot!
The anti-guns zealots must not think we ever watch the local news in Atlanta. They must not realize that we know that cops are having to send emails to people saying that whole parts of Atlanta is not safe (thank you Queen Shirley for running such a safe city!) even when walking to or from your vehicles to your doors or talking to a neighbor in your own yard. I suppose this way of life is the norm to them. They must not realize we know that the leaders of most of the metro area continually fail in regards to keeping us safe. They want us to roll over and play politically correct. We’re not stupid, we know what’s going on on the streets and although we can’t for sure say we won’t ever be a victim, my locked and loaded Sig 9 mm in my truck and my pump 12 gague in the home makes my chances a little less than that of Copyleft.
Gun manufacturers should stop selling to guns & ammo to Police departments in liberal districts, since they hate guns so much. Because, you know, we wouldn’t want to encroach on their liberal values. I for one see this country balkanizing eventually. That will be a good thing, because that would leave the liberals (like Copyleft) to their own devices. After they self destruct by killing each other with whatever sharp objects they can get their hands on, after their socialist utopia collapses & everyone is starving & robbing each other, we can move back in & use the land & resources for something positive..
March 30th, 2009
10:05 am
I think the anti-gun crowd is missing the point. Take yourself as the example. If I gave you a gun, would you feel compelled to go shoot someone just because you possess the means to do so? Of course not. You could fill Philips Arena with 20,000 responsible people, all carrying guns, and not have one incident.
Do they sell beer in Phillips? If so, think again Jay Dubbe.
How many “law abiding” citizens are buying guns that wind up in Mexico? Obviously quite a few. But then they couldn’t really be considered “law abiding” could they. And how many of these “law abiding” citizens have been involved in all these rampages we’ve seen recently? Again, kind of cloudy as to how “law abiding” they really were all along. More than likely if any of you wannabe gunfighters have to have your peice pried from your cold dead fingers, it will probably be another “law abiding” wacko that took you out. Remember the “law abiding” wacko in Florida that went inside and got his gun to straighten out his neighbor for too many bags of garbage out at the curb. Wasn’t this “law abiding” citizen just that right up to the time he blew his neighbor away over garbage bags? You guys sure like to throw around that “law abiding” line knowing full well that most shootings and almost all shootings involving household incidents or accident are perpetrated by who? “Law abiding” citizens, that’s who.
Copyleft, I hope that you have recently slipped, fallen and hit your head, as your comments are more than ignorant. I hope that you do not one day find yourself in a situation where you need a firearm for self defense, because I am afraid that you just might try to throw it at your assailant. But in case you do one day pull your head out of the sand and decide to lawfully defend yourself, the barrel of the gun is to be pointed at your attacker. Oh, and read the Constitution, and ALL of its amendments when you have time.
I love how some of you gun “owners” cite the 2nd Amendment. As if you even understood what it means. To be honest… the “right to bear arms” means that if I have the means to afford one… I should be able to protect myself with a small nuclear weapon…perhaps a few missile launchers as well. If those are the “arms” I choose to “protect” myself and my family… you show me where it says anywhere in our constitution or any of our amendments where I can not have those things.
What part of “well regulated militia” do the majority of you not understand. Want to go to the woods? Leave your guns at home. As I stated above…I’ve hiked thousands of miles and never had the need for one. Yet not ONE of you has responded to what I said above…the MAJORITY of people that have been killed in our nations parks…have been killed by HUNTERS. Dare you now prove me wrong. You can’t. All statistics point to what I just wrote as being both true and factual.
I think we all agree that guns & more than a small amount of alcohol don’t mix.. In other words the same laws that apply to drinking & driving should apply to handling a firearm. I don’t know one legally carrying firearms owner that would disagree with that.
Liberals try to paint us as the nuts, when in fact their party’s constituents make up most of the U.S. prison population..
The one thing I keep noticing that is missing is this important distinction: The law was written allowing those that ALREADY HAD A CCW to CONTINUE carrying in national parks located in that state. It did NOT give the normal non-licensed individual the right to suddenly carry a loaded weapon.
Now the crux of the reversal is as Mr. Barr described it. A loaded weapon is no different than an unloaded one (as complying with the existing old law-unloaded and ammo separate) as far as environmental impact. So the reversal on the new ruling is just a bogus loophole someone decided to use to stall the ruling by saying the Bush admin didn’t ‘check’ the box. And I’ll bet anyone a round that it wasn’t checked for the old rule either.
Now for my friends Copyleft, Nan, etc…..please….lighten up. You can hate guns all you want, you can use stereotyping, insults and all other rhetoric to describe folks who own guns…whatever, it’s your right to feel that way and say what you want. You can choose which rights you do or do not excercise. I choose to exercise the 2A, and it’s my right to own and carry a firearm if I so feel inclined. So please respect others’ rights. You do as you want, but please leave me to do as I see fit.
Do the people around you know that you have so little trust in them? I’ll bet that they would definately see a distinction between them and career criminals/mass murderers. I know there’s a huge one between myself and people like those: I’ve never been arrested. Can you say the same? I wonder who you think the “good guys” really are….
Saul Good, would a militia not consist of individuals? & where in the Constitution does it say that those individuals can’t take their guns home for their own protection?
Also, there has never been any argument made by gun owners that they should have access to a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION.. You’re being ridiculous, & twisting the facts because you can’t come up with a rational argument against firearms.
Lastly, I’m sure you drive an automobile, which kills more people than guns do in this country, but I don’t hear you liberals asking to have your cars taken away.. You’re arguments are biased & idiotic.
Hey Saul Good.. Care to back up your BS claim (see below) with some data? Links? Proof? We’ll be waiting.. A LONG TIME I think..
“the MAJORITY of people that have been killed in our nations parks…have been killed by HUNTERS. Dare you now prove me wrong. You can’t. All statistics point to what I just wrote as being both true and factual.”
Saul Good: Check these statistics – more people die in car and traffic accidents every year than in all gun related incidents combined.
So here we all are going about our daily business in large, heavy, motorized deadly pieces of equipment that are all regulated up the wazoo (as if that does anything but generate revenues); and there are no calls to ban cars, not even those evil, deadly sports car types. Yet we go day to day trusting that the guy next us on the highway is going to do his best to NOT cause an accident and kill us on the way to work.
Maybe, just maybe, they the public should check on the number of times the A.F. 1 has been flown and various members of congress have used AF planes for their use. Could we the tax payer demand that they pay time and charges for the use???
Why does everyone assume that the loaded firearm would necessarily be used to defenda against another *person*? Was there something in the law/rule/proposed rule change that said that? Because it seems to me that if I am hiking in a national park, I am a heck-of-a-lot more likely to want a loaded firearm to protect me against wildlife than against another person.
It’s amusing how many of the gun fondlers claim to be experts on the Constitution, yet continue to insist that regulating gun ownership–an act specified in the Second Amendment itself–is somehow “unconstitutional.”
Clearly, some remedial reading training is needed… but not for those of us who can read the ENTIRE amendment.
It is for defending against 2 legged as well as 4 legged varmints! It just seems that the “Anti’s” always refer to gun/2A enthusiasts as going to kill people left and right!
If you read the second amendment, it says nothing about regulating the right to keep and bear arms. What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?
A well regulated militia… not a well regulated bearing of arms!
Yeah Copyleft, reading a bill is critical. Would have been nice had you democrats read all of the so called stimulas package, you could have read Dodd’s little insertion about the AIG fatcats getting to keep the contractual bonuses. I suppose they were too busy kissing Obama butt to bother ot read it. That would have saved all the phony and fake outcry from Obama and his confederacy of dunces on the hill.
Amazing how the anti-gun people are so “positive” that they cannot address facts, having to resort to insults and ad hominem attacks against perfect strangers — the rest of us, since they do NOT know who does or does not own a gun in their neighborhoods — including some NRA members who choose not to own, but belong to that group for its express defense of the ENTIRE US Constitution. What a bunch of stupid paranoid morons! How you idiot leftist weenie cry-baby sheeple like to be insulted? Makes you feel good and superior to the rest of us doesn’t it? But, it does not change FACTS. FACT: 60 million law-abiding gun owners in the US did NOT kill anyone this year. Or last. EVER!
While we are at it lets ban cars from National Parks. Better still ban cans period. They cause many more deaths daily than guns do. The idiocy of some people baffles me. Call 911 dial a prayer and a Police officer may get there in time to keep you from rotting and stinking too bad.
Regarding, “well-regulated” in the Second Amendment, it refers to training and espris de corps (that’s French for something akin to coordinated in action, purpose, interchangeability of calibre of bullets so a dead soldiers lead projectiles can be fired from any other of the militia-persons’ weapons). One cannot have a militia full of morons who decide when or if to attack, or show up with hammers and sickles instead of the best fire power needed to take down tyrants attacking them… The latter “if” would probably be emanating from those who capitulate at the first sign of “trouble”, like those fools who give in to the gummint when it bellows at them from a “bully’s pulpit” — that would be “Obama, The Tele Prompter” Hollywood’s latest action hero — himself unarmed, but SURROUNDED by armed citizens, who by extension of the reasoning proffered by Nan and others, are no different than criminals — which may well be, but for entirely different reasons than they might suppose… the rationale for the Second Amendment.
Copyleft: since you are so “trained” and no doubt endlessly educated, I thought that you might know what “well regulated” meant in the Founders’ context. Back then “well regulated” meant proficiently trained, armed and well maintained – it did not pertain to the regulation of gunownership by the government.
I know that you probably just made an honest mistake right?
Okay, history students, let’s look at what the 2nd Amendment says….militia is a term that meant the whole of the adult male population of the time to fight against a tyrannical government. The militia of the time did not refer to organized programs such as our current national guard or reserve. These programs did not exist. The arms referred to weapons equal to that of the foot-soldier used against the citizenry, such as muskets and side-arms, not cannons. This information was gleaned from listening to the presentations of Joseph Olson, Hamline University, MN, constitutional law professor….where did you other folks that speak against the gun-owner garner your information from?
Oh, the side-arms carried by law enforcement are there for the protection of the officer wearing them. They are a reactionary force, not a protection unit. They respond to crime 90% of the time and prevent it 10% of time….I apologize for having to add this later rather than include it in my last blurb. So, to say that the Park Ranger or Police Officer is going to protect folks that are out and about is incorrect.
Read the cases, folks; the Supreme Court has come down on the side of constitutional regulations on gun ownership over and over.
U.S. v Miller; Robertson v City of Denver; U.S. v Oakes; U.S. v Johnson; Eckert v Pennsylvania; Burton v Sills; U.S. v Booker; Mullenix v BATF; U.S. v Walters; and so on….
Regulated ownership is Constitutional; you’re stuck with it, folks, so don’t bother trying to get all fundamentalist on this one.
For those of you who believe that the right to bear arms is a collective right (meaning you think it’s only for the militia and not individuals.. and have you thought about that? Is any other right in the Bill of Rights collective? No? Huh.. wonder how that works?.. oh wait.. it doesn’t.. yeesh) then I direct you to the Militia Act of 1903. Which says that all males age 17-45 are to be considered part of the “unorganized militia” so I guess the question is “why are we depriving 17-year-olds the right to bear arms?”
Copyleft, learn how to use a dictionary! “Regulated-To put or maintain in order;To adjust to a particular specification or requirement.” Therefore, a ‘well regulated Militia’ is one that is properly equipped and ready to respond to ‘provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.’ By the way, that’s also from the Constitution.
Mark: As I said, check with the Supreme Court. Regulated gun ownership has always been constitutional, and it still is today. HUNDREDS of case precedents back that up.
You may not like it, but you don’t get to make the call. Your preferred interpretation doesn’t matter; the Court’s does.
It is interesting hearing some of the rhetoric by people such as Copyleft. I can sum this viewpoint up as being “pro rape.”
PRO RAPE – To be pro rape means you are telling your daughters, mothers, sisters, nieces, et al that you are making a collective decision to notify a person looking to commit a violent crime such as rape that the statistical chances of this person being armed for self defense are dramatically reduced, thus making the risk of committing such a crime also reduced.
DDT: Everyone should have the same regard for the ENTIRE Bill of Rights. That’s the problem. All the ammendments do not get equal importance, the 4th included.
Copyleft: yes regulation has been a part of guns for some time; but that was NOT the intent behind the 2nd ammendment. The fact that it exists has been a result the the slow but progressive encroachment of progressive and liberal idiologies into legislation, not because the Constitution says its OK. Its for “public safety” mentalitites and my favorite: “Do it for the children”.
I think this whole matter can be summed up with the quote:
“If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.”
I like the idea of having a person looking to perpetrate a crime against another person looking to ask himself if the person he is looking to attack is carrying a firearm.
Where the law falls short typically is enforcement of illegal guns. The reason there is a surge in gun sales, beginner’s shooting class and GA carry permits is because people do not have the confidence in the system (system = laws + law enforcement) to guard them against the threat of violent crime.
Where is the community outrage that people have lost their feeling of security to the point they feel they need to pick up arms. There are alot of new gun owners and first time carry permit holders having to grapple this question. It is a scary thing to ask yourself, ‘I am willing to point this gun at an attacker, fight for my life, and put the rest of my life on the line through litigation an court proceedings because of my actions and the fact I wasn’t willing to trust a violent attacker to spare my life.”
For all of those that believe in using statistics for your safety, I have to laugh. Statistical averages did nothing to stop Jennifer Ewing from being attacked on the Silver Comet Trail.
What is the problem with letting individuals protect themselves? If you are not up to that responsibility, so be it. Some of us are up to it.
Copyleft – Since when did a criminal ever give a damn about gun laws? It’s not the honest citizen out hiking or camping with friends and family we need to worry about endangering someone because they HAVE A WEAPON FOR SAFETY…it is the “Couey-type” guys out there who are looking for their next UNARMED victim we should be worried about.
I guess this is another example of sitting around waiting for the Guberment to save us!
STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!
I’M 51 YEARS OLD AND I’VE HAD A HAND GUN PERMIT SINCE I WAS 21 YEARS OLD! NEVER BEEN ARRESTED OR EVEN HAD A PARKING TICKET!MY TWO BROTHERS ALSO HAVE PISTOL PERMITS AND MY THREE SONS WILL BE GETTING THEIR’S SOON.WE WERE RAISED TO RESPECT AND PROPERLY USE FIRE ARMS! WHAT’S MORE WE WERE TAUGHT THE DIFFERNCE BETWEEN RIGHT AN WRONG,GOOD AND EVIL!MAYBE THAT’S THE REAL PROBLEM,PEOPLE DON’T KNOW OR DON’T CARE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE ANY MORE!SO I CARRY A HANDGUN WITH ME IF I GO TO THE STORE OR A WALK IN THE WOODS WITH MY WIFE! TO PROTECT US AGAINST MAN OR BEAST!IT’S BETTER TO HAVE A GUN AND NOT NEED IT, THAN NEED ONE AND NOT HAVE IT! THANK YOU!
I challenge anyone out there to find a case of a concealed carry permit holder engaging in a mass shooting. The nursing home in NC? The VT shooting? The 4 Oakland PD officers? All the way back to Lubby’s in Kileen! NONE! Some of them were even prohibited persons who STILL managed to acquire firearms DESPITE laws to the contrary. When are you people going to learn that laws DO NOT stop crime; competent, aggressive, and (when necessary) armed resistance is what STOPS crime. Less live criminals equals less crime! To quote Mr Burke, ‘All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.’
Since The U.S. Constitution and The Bill of Rights framed our inalienable rights and predates activist judges, my right to own a gun which can not be infringed, CAN NOT BE INFRINGED by Copyleft or any judge, bill or law.
I choose to protect my family with the gun I’ve never had to use to do so. But, crime still gets reported daily about murders, robberies, home invasions, etc. These crimes are not imaginary. They really happen and guns are often the leverage which allowed the criminal to win.
Any person who willingly allows their family to be subject to force does not deserve to be defended, even though our laws provide him or her with that right.
The thinning of the herd continues.
Maybe we gun owners should provide a hotline for the spouses and children of individuals like CopyLeft. It might be our moral responsibility to protect the defenseless.
There was a comment made by Road Scholar that make said if there is a problem in a park that you should contact a park ranger and they can defuse the situation. There are a few points I would like to make to this comment. First there are not enough park rangers in most parks to be everywhere all the time. One big reason for this is that most parks whether they are state or federal are having to make cut backs on the number of rangers due to lack of funding. Not to mention the fact that it would be impossible to have a ranger covering every inch of a park to prevent a situation.
Another point I would like to make is the simple fact that a criminal is not going to wait around for a ranger to show up. If there is a criminal with a gun and he is willing to use it on another person, do you really think that the ciminal will allow the person being attacked to call for help??? Or with the person does manage to call for help do you really think that he ciminal is going to wait around to get caught. I do not think so.
So lets take a step back. Not enough protection due to not enough rangers due to not enough funding. A gun man is not going to wait for the ranger to eventually get there if somone manages to get a message to one. By this point in time the criminal is either long gone with all of your stuff and your sitting there going I wish i had a way to defend myself. Or you are on the ground dead because you didnt have a to protect yourself against the guy that had a gun and to ranger to be found to protect you.
Well, you could dial 911 or the number posted at the entrance to the park or your entrance pass to the park! Duh! While I have to admit the criminal won’t wait for the Ranger, you could help them find the a$$holes by describing their appearance, license tag, etc. They could close the entrances/exits (ie lockdown) until found. Oh, I know it doesn’t provide you with the instant gratification of blowing someone away, but there are other means!Give them what they want, then aggressively contact the police.
Hey Lefty and Nan, Please submit your photos so that we,the lawful bearers of arms, can walk off and leave you at the mercy of the bad guys instead of saving your sorry asses
Well guys here is the problem, as long as we have a Gov’t that is nothing but a bunch of bed wetting lib’s, we are always going to fight for our gun rights. Its the LIB’S way or no way as far as they are concerned and that is whats so disturbing about this country.
1. When seconds count, the authorities are only minutes away.
2. I’d rather have the means to protect myself and my loved ones, and never need it, than not have the means and need it just one time.
I’m a former police officer, and I believe that honest citizens who are prepared and equipped to protect themselves, their loved ones, and each other if necessary are the best deterrent to our society continuing its headlong plunge into lawlessness.
Well, I keep my anti-tank weapon and the two machine guns I use for hunting and self defense loaded all the time and I’ll keep them that way when I go to a park. People give you a wide berth when you stake out a camping site and they see you with a M-60 and a big long string of ammo for it. If one of the criminals ever come for me they’ll need a vacuum cleaner to pick up the remains. This is GA, not some yankee state.
WE NEED TO POST SIGNS AT OUR PARKS; WARNING ,ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK! THE BEARS DON’T NEED GUNS,ONLY THE CEIMINALS HAVE WEAPONS AND YOUR 911 DIAL A PRYER PROBABLY WON’T EVAN HAVE ANY BARS!!!
What a LINE Of CRAP!! It is my second ammendment right to bear arms and protect myslef and my family form any threat, person or animal. I have spent thousands of hours hunting fishing and enjoying the outdoors. I have had to use my firearm to protect myself from an unleashed violent dog. I have never shot,robbed or raped any person,or have broke any Laws you see I obey the laws and yes I carry and firearm were ever the law allows me to. It it my choise “Not to be a victim” so it is two shots center mass and one shot in the head!
For all the anti-gunners and Liberals it is my tax dollars spent on hunting and fishing permits, tags, and licenses pays for the upkeep of the National Forest and Parks.
It should be my right to carry a firearm just as the Laws of Arizona allow me to do so. Just remember if you come to me for help and I am unarmed because of this B.S. law…expect NO HELP form me! I don’t know if your intent is to do harm, so I will leave you and your family to your distress and I hope you the best!
Just remember Americans that have a sack will protect thier individual rights and will keep this country safe.
CopyLeft, you are very illiterate when it comes to guns. If you stop all law abiding citizens from carrying guns then only the bad guys would have them. Do the bad guys follow the law? I think not, so next time you are robbed at gun point at a place where nobody but the bad guys have them what are you going to do? Oh that’s right Obama will take care of you.
Interesting that the example Barr gives is Hilton, whose crimes were in National Forests which comply with state carry rules, unlike National Parks. National Forest carry rules weren’t changed by Bush or Obama.
CopyLeft, why do you hate America? If you don’t believe in the constitution you are free to leave. In fact let me know where to send you your one way ticket to China, you seem like you would be a good fit there. Only the bad guys have guns there, and they are the government.
Come on people it hasn’t anything to do with safety of non firearm owners. Simply put it has all to do with a activist/political wing exercising they’re ability to take something away from another group that does not chair they’re political ideology.
Look around us, we are surrounding by ankle biting activists who are against everything. They’re against cigarettes, fast food, hunting, fishing, walking on the beach, riding four wheelers, dirt bikes, riding horses, fireworks, motor vehicles, nuclear power plants, light bulbs, fur coats, and humans in general.
Why do we put up with their horse squeeze, like one putz said, “You have your guns we have our legislation to take your guns away from you.” Its bout time we put these little pesky cretins back under the rocks from whence the came.
I’m sorry she feels that way. It don’t have any impact on my life. Why? because the U.S. Supreme Courts (easily verified threw simple research) have ruled time and time again that law enforcement is not obligated to protect me. That that obligation for my own safety rests squarely on my shoulders and mine alone. As such I will do what ever I deem necessary to protect myself up to and including lethal force. Yes I will continue to carry my sheath knife or Colt Commander 45 acp. Yes it will be loaded with ball ammo or +P hydra-shock ammo. Why? because I refuse to be a victim of crime. Yes If some scum sucking pos criminal wants to try his or her luck, I will of course do what I need to do to ensure my safety and well being. Why? Because you law enforcement types, Despite the great jobs you do to try and make the population feel safe, No disrespect intended ,are incapable of protecting me when I might need it. I am forced to live in the real world not a make believe world that these brain dead politicians and judges seem to live in. As such I am forced to acknowledge reality for what it is and act accordingly, and until I see Park Rangers or Police Officers at each corner and at mid point location of a city block or at a tree or desert bush every 500 feet where you can respond faster and until the US Supreme Courts holds you responsible to the obligation of my safety. I will continue to do what I need to do to ensure my own safety as well as that of my family and close friends. If the government don’t like that way of thinking. The to bad so sad. You politicians need to go to the hospital and ask the surgeons to remove your heads from your butts. because it apparently is stuck so far up there that you can not get it out on your own. You also need to recognize that by handing out real punishments to those that choose to attack otherwise law abiding citizen is what works. Not doing things that make it easier for them to make more victims. But then you are on the same side as the criminals anyways. lol. If some people dont want to own fire arms. That is their right. They can rely on the government sponsored dial a prayer, better known as 911 if they choose. Maybe someone will get to them in time maybe not. That is their choice and I respect that. I however will not respect them imposing their beliefs down my throat. I will take my safety in my own hands. Now, what the hell does an environmental study have to do with personal self defense anyways?
I would love for guns to be illegal – a complete ban on every firearm of every caliber for every person. We all know that a ban like this would work because we can look at the “war” on drugs for our evidence. Cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. are all illegal and billions are spent to keep them out of our country. See how effective this has been? Did I just say that out loud? Crap, I’d better run down to the corner and get me a dime bag and smoke this one off.
Some quotes from the people who drafted and approved the Bill of Rights:
“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])
“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
“the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone,” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in ‘An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
“…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?” (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))
“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)
“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
“The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)
BTW I view guns like I would a first aid kit or a fire extinguisher. As I have all three in my house and in my Jeep.My feelings are this. I would rather have one and not need it. Than to need it and not have it…. It’s your life, protect it the way you want to. I will protect mine the way I want to..
The second amendment has always been about giving the citizens the right to protect themselves against tyrranical government, not about hunting, target shooting, or even about crime prevention. But since you can’t pick and choose when the citizenry might need to exercise that right, you can’t deny it ever.
I wonder how many of this anti gun people has a Home Security system, Locked their doors when they leave home and go to sleep or owns all kinds of insurance policy? If they are so confident that everything is Ok if only guns are taken away, they should take off the doors in their homes and stop using all this services that they use to protect their family and self otherwise they are just bunch of Hypocrites. Guns are the last line of defense for gun owner.
For those railing against liberals, slow yourself down there pardner. There is a diverse universe of liberals. I for one vote liberal but I own guns. The current stance by the Democratic party doesn’t make me happy, but I also know that they can only take it so far – political will against gun bans is too great in this country, thus it is very unlikely to happen. For a host of reasons (abortion rights, separation of church and state, select social programs), I find that the liberal/progressive approach is more appealing. For gun rights, the conservatives have the right idea. Just be careful about generalizations. There is very little that is black and white in this world. For intelligent folks, the existence of nuance can be easily appreciated.
It’s so sad that all these people are so anti gun! I think all the follow up to these wacko anti gunners has been addressed here. I just want to ask Road Scholar about his comment “Give them what they want, then aggressively contact the police.” Are you out of you mind? You trust some thug to POINT a gun at you while you give them all of your possessions more than you trust me (the smiling guy with my wife and kids) concealing a handgun for our safety? CRAZY! First of all what if I don’t want to give them what they want? What if I actually want to keep my stuff? Second, since guns are SO dangerous don’t you think a mistake would most likely be made in a situation where the creep is putting a gun in your face? Third, what if the a-hole decides that he doesn’t like the way you look and shoots you? Lastly, AGRESSIVELY CALL THE POLICE? That makes me laugh. He has a .45 in your face and when he robs you and runs away never to be caught you are going to AGRESSIVELY CALL THE POLICE? LOL! That’s a good one. You go ahead and do that so they can come quickly and photograph your body.
These must have been some CRAZY CRIMINALS because they think like me??
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
— Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796
The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
—James Madison
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
—Tenche Coxe,
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” —George Washington
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined.” —Patrick Henry
These People must have been WACKO right? What do side did they sound like they were on. Of course they were just criminals anyway because there’s not much difference…IDIOTS!
I wonder if copyleft, nan and others who feel the need to attack our right/duty to protect our loved ones with a conceled carry weapon while visiting our Nationl parks could pass a ccw bockground check? One should not overlook what there real motivation is.
Moron Mark, I’m sure that not all gunowners have concealed carry permits. Good try though at cherry picking a small portion of the populace to make your point. Now tell us wise guy. How many gun crimes and crimes of let’s say passion were committed by those gun owners. Plenty I bet. From seeing you in Badies blog the other day spouting off your your Aryan Army delusion/fantasy, you are the last person that needs a gun. You’re dumber than a box of rocks.
Drink a beer. Bust a few caps. Drink another beer, blast away some more. Drink another beer, belch, fire a few more rounds. Is that all you Barney Fifes think about. I know it’s your entire life, but damn…..
Another ridiculous statistic trotted out for idiots’ consumption: gun owners are (your number) as likely to injure or kill themselves than those who do not have a firearm in the home. So, does owning a gun make you a danger to yourself OR do YOU make owning a gun a dangerous thing?
Does owning more than one or two guns make you more dangerous than someone owning one gun? What about REAL gun-nuts like ME, who own 25, thirty (Lord help me, I’ve lost count). This logic reminds me of Dr. Suess’s ‘Green Eggs & Ham’. Every silly scenario presented by Sam is just as laughable as the gun control freaks’ imaginations: More guns, less guns, no guns, pop-guns!
David, you must be a real wimp, and I take offense to your statement that only ‘testosterone-laden males’ have any interest in guns or defending themselves/families/other innocent people. For your information, I am a woman, a USAF veteran, who legally carries a gun and values her 2nd ammendment rights to do so, and I know alot of other women who either have guns and/or carry them for protection. My baby sister just got HER ccw. And, if you have a clue what is going on right now, you would know that guns and ammo retailers are seeing an influx of WOMEN buying guns and ammo, even ‘old ladies’. So take your 1950’s views and shove ‘em, you’re obviously a male chauvinist pig. Guys like you make me sick.
Georgia Redneck, honey, I hate to tell you, but it’s not just rednecks that own guns anymore dear. You must have had a very misinformed upbringing, and obviously your parents, probably your father, set a great example for you, since you grew up to be a prejudicial, idiotic bigot of a person.
First lets put everything into perspective. Liberalism is a mental disorder. Okay, can’t hunt in national parks because of that bad old lead ammo. Well, the only people I heard of that ate lead paint were usually low IQ inner city YUFFs. In my neighborhood we typically don’t eat lead paint atleat not without barbecue sauce. Okay, lead is to be made illegal just as CO2 is to be. Okay, lets take lead out of the nuclear reactors that are located near these urban welfare centers. CO2 is used by plants to convert to oxygen. Last time I looked Oxygen is a good thing. Obvious not enough oxygen got to the brains of Hillary and Kerry. Okay Hillary and Kerry let’s look at their life experience. Hillary dodge sniper fire in Bosnia, she also avidly hunted ducks with her grandfather. Kerry came to OHIO and baited geese and supposedly shot one. Kerry also went up the Makong delta into cambodia. Okay, to much lead in their food atleast based on their thought. Guns should be allowed in parks because people hunt and their are bears, and actually there are brazen homosexuals who try to assault innocent park dwellers. Well liberalism is a mental disease right Hillary and Kerry.
It is so easy to tell Anti rights people, They all state lies and mistruths instead of facts because they can not do research on their own. They follow like sheep when they are themselves elitists and hypocrytes who think they are better than the rest of society.
Copyleft & Nan for example have no facts just insinuations. When the briliant men who founded the Constitution and this great country had more brains in their small toe than Copyleft or Nan have combined.
At the time the Bill Of Rights was written the meaning of (Regulated) meant supplied or stocked. Theirfore (A well supplied militia)was the intent of the time. Our society is going to hell because of the likes of Copyleft and Nan for they are so dependant on government they would love Chavez or Hitler.
First of all: Regulation of gun ownership IS constitutional</I, and there’s not a dang thing you can do about it. So quit whining about some insane fringe, absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and accept what it ACTUALLY means here in the real world: regulation means regulation, period.
Second: Facts include things like ALL the Supreme Court cases I’ve cited on this very point, as well as hundreds more that address this same issue. Regulation of gun ownership was, is, and always will be Constitutional barring a new amendment.
You really can’t do anything about it, gun nuts. Your rights DO have limits, and those limits DO stand up in court. Quit acting like spoiled babies and start looking for ways to make your case a bit better.
Our society is doing just fine, thank you, and getting better the more often we can put liberal officials in office to move us forward, rather than back to the jungle (or bunker, in your case).
Sam S. Sense you can’t refute my argument you resort to name calling? I have no idea what ‘Badies blog’ is and I assure I am NOT an Aryan! My point was that everyone who is against this rule seems to think it would allow just ANYONE to carry a concealed weapon; it applies ONLY to those who have passed the requirements to be granted a carry permit. As a subset of ‘gun owners,’ concealed carry licsencees are WAY more law abiding than just about any other group of people, including law enforcement officers! Look up any States’ statistics on revocations and you’ll see something on the order of 0.05 to 0.08% of CHLs granted are revolked for any sort of criminal misbehavior. For your information, the process to receive a permit includes an FBI level background check, training by a certified instructor, authorized examination of your medical history for any mental health, alcohol or drug addiction issues, and any other various state requirements.
Road Scholar, you said “Well, you could dial 911 or the number posted at the entrance to the park or your entrance pass to the park!” Excuse me, but there are LARGE sections of National Parks with absolutely NO cell phone coverage. Also, if it took you several hours to get from the park entrance to where you are, then it will take a Park Ranger about that same ammount of time to find you!
Yes, copylefty, and that can change with a single ruling. When, and if, that happens, there will be a new precedent set.
The problem, as I have articulated for you loser lefty’s over on Bookman’s blog, is that you and your Socialist buddies have corrupted the Constitution over the years with liberal loopholes and torturous interpretations to where the ORIGINAL INTENT has been DEFILED by the law.
We talk raw, plain-spoken Constitution here, son, not your ba$tardized version of the Constitution through the eyes of liberal judges. Take your lack of law degree elsewhere.
The judge overturned it because the Bush Administration didn’t do an assessment? These are the same anti-gun people that want to pass rediculous gun control laws without doing assessments. But now since it is pro-gun now they want an assessment? These liberals don’t assess their useless anti-gun laws because they know that if they did that America would see that they are counter-productive to making Americans more safe. Oh and NAN and COPYLEFT and the rest of that ilk, to help you out with your argument: only paranoid people need to own guns. The muggers, robbers, rapists and murderers don’t own guns and don’t carry guns because they are not allowed to by law, and we all know how well criminals obey the law. Guns pull their own triggers, cars cause accidents and kill people, pencils are the cause of spelling errors not the people using them. So as long as we throw logic and common sense out the window we can understand people like NAN, COPYLEFT, and the rest of the anti-gun crowd. There is a difference between somebody who is armed that is a criminal, and someone who is armed legally, i.e. LAW ABIDING citizens. You anti-gun ilk need to stop confusing us LAW ABIDING citizens with the criminals.
The judge overturned it because the Bush Administration didn’t do an assessment? These are the same anti-gun people that want to pass rediculous gun control laws without doing assessments. But now since it is pro-gun now they want an assessment? These liberals don’t assess their useless anti-gun laws because they know that if they did that America would see that they are counter-productive to making Americans more safe. Oh and NAN and COPYLEFT and the rest of that ilk, to help you out with your argument: only paranoid people need to own guns. The muggers, robbers, rapists and murderers don’t own guns and don’t carry guns because they are not allowed to by law, and we all know how well criminals obey the law. Guns pull their own triggers, cars cause accidents and kill people, pencils are the cause of spelling errors not the people using them. So as long as we throw logic and common sense out the window we can understand people like NAN, COPYLEFT, and the rest of the anti-gun crowd. There is a difference between somebody who is armed that is a criminal, and someone who is armed legally, i.e. LAW ABIDING citizens. You anti-gunners need to stop confusing us LAW ABIDING citizens with the criminals.
Well, if these weenies want my anti-tank weapon and the two machine guns I use for hunting and self defense they can come up here to Simpsons Trailer Park and try and take them. I even plan to be buried with them–just in case things go wrong on the other side.
After witnessing a serious road rage incident yesterday at the I-75/Delk Rd. exit I can see both sides of this issue. You have a guy yelling and screaming at another driver and waving a gun at him while driving like a total fool, endangering everyone around him and you have to think that this nutcase definately shouldn’t possess a gun. On the other hand you think that because of unstable people like him everyone else needs one to defend against him. But I guess bottom line was yesterday, had two candidates for the psycho ward been raging with each other and both had guns, what would have happened then? Guys like that make a strong case for getting guns out of those hands whether it is his right or not to possess it. Maybe guns should be handle like driver’s licenses (he shouldn’t have one of those either the way he was behaving with that 3500lb deadly weapon).
Hey MChammer: the person being threatened could leave, thus avaoiding any confrontation and eliminating the likelyhood of something going wrong! The guy waving the gun obviously has a problem.
This makes perfect sense, the drug lords have a multi-billion dollar business to protect so they buy assault weapons from California (which has had an assault weapons ban for twenty years), which aren’t really assault weapons. Probably a lack of business education, they are unable to identify suppliers of true assualt weapons. There is also the US government available to augment the supply of military grade materials, ostensibly to Mexican government, that so easily appears in criminal hands.
The nutjobs of various persuasions have been with us since the dawn of time. The question therefore becomes: how much of our rights do you want us to give up because of their actions?
Sure guns are bad…but what about kitchen knives? There’s people running around cutting their sisters heads off with kitchen knives! For the love of God, will the govt do nothing to address this threat?
Another way they may push gun control is through some type of economic reform. The federal government recently used the bailout measure as a lever to oust the CEO of GM. The Treasury wants authority to more closely regulate private business. I can see them using that as an excuse to regulate the firearms industry. It would start small, but expand over time until the goal is achieved. There doesn’t seem to be anything the current administration won’t attempt.
The guy waving the gun in the road rage incident is in violation of existing laws, report him to the police. If you didn’t, then you’re part of the problem. It’s as easy as calling 911 and saying “Hey, there’s a guy at waving a gun threateningly at another motorist, please send a cop.” You should also do this for accidents and other problems you see. We can work within the framework of laws we have without resorting to more onerous legislation. I fail to see how passing more legislation will improve things considering the enforcement failures that happen now. After all, the VT shooter should never have been able to purchase a firearm legally.. except the system failed. I still think guns in this country are pointlessly over-hyped. Use that money to provide cancer treatment, mental healthcare, or low cost gymnasiums if you actually want to save the most lives. Targeting guns is irrational and ineffective.
Went to many gun shows recently and was looking to buy assaut weapons, granades, rockest & rocket launchers just like the pukes in Washington District of Corruption says we have. Guess what, its all a pack of lies there were no such weapons here. Just another Obamanation plan of deception. I will give up my guns if Obama makes his body guards give up his.
For all of you who want more gun control because of all the gun violence, the genie is out of the bottle. All of the criminals have firearms and are not afraid to use them. Give the law-abiding citizen the ability to protect himself. If you think stricter gun laws will prevent crime, you are a fool. Davo makes a very good point.
The government still hasn’t learned it’s lesson about banning anything. All you do is create a black market for the item in question. Supply and demand – economics 101. After all, prohibition and the “war on drugs” has worked so well.
The same fellows who are savvy enough to bring illegal drugs into this country by the tractor-trailer load probably won’t have any problem obtaining contraband weapons.
The biggest manufacturer of the AK style “assault weapon” is China. Brazil also has a pretty healthy weapons manufacturing base. Let’s see, many of the drug cartels are located where??? That’s right, South America. Don’t have to be a Rhodes Scholar to draw a line between those two peices of the puzzle.
What has happened in Great Britain since they outlawed many types of firearms? Bueller? Ferris Bueller??
Times like this are when we really miss Bob Barr in Washington….
I agree with some the things the government is trying to do. You say banning something doesn’t work, yet you are for the drug war, police soberity check points. You say that you don’t want those pesky regulations to dictate how you purchase your guns. Those pesky laws made a black market sure but it also made it harsher for those selling guns on the black market. These are the same policies that make you do a background check before you buy a gun. You knock a gun manufacturers for supporting training and safety locks for their weapons but yet applaud auto industry for supporting teenagers driving training programs. Which do you want the ability to go into any gun store and purchase any type of weapon just because you an American. It amazes me that we are in the same state where they require you to prove citenzenship in order to vote you yahoos don’t want no type of hinderance on your guns. Assinine just assinine.
[...] Here’s a recent very well written article on how the anti’s plan on using the Mexican drug problem, and other tactics, to push their agenda. Gun-control crowd pushes radical goal | The Barr Code [...]
The 2nd Amendment was put created to protect the citizenry from tyranny by a government gone out of control. The Founding Fathers knew there was a potential that the government would overstep the bounds of the Constitution and infringe upon the citizens rights.
The guns are to protect you from the Liberals and especially Obozo.
Jimbo seemed to give the correct solution. A driver on the road should have called 911 and reported the incident. Give them the guys license plate number. If multiple drivers are involved, give info on each car. For every driver you see waving that gun, there are many more in their car that carry one but don’t pull it out due to road rage. No need to go overboard and stop everyone from carrying one.
Would you ban all parents from their children’s sporting events just because a few parents that go start fights?
it never ceases to amaze me that liberals want to take guns away from the law-abiding citzens who lawfully purchase them in the first place. Why they refuse to acknowledge that the criminals whose gun-related violence they descry don’t purchase them legally, therefore gun control laws would be of no use. And it’s not like the US is the only company that makes guns. If criminals can’t get US-made fireamrs, they buy russian, german, etc. made and the result will still be the same. The criminals will have gins, and the general populace will be defenseless. I wonder if anyone will cite kellerman’s study on gun violence. I’m waiting….
In Germany, they rounded up the guns. If you had one, they shot you on sight. Not sure if we should expect anything different here when the orders to confiscate are issued.
Here is a column I wrote about Just One Gun over a year ago. Nothing has changed but the location of the assault and the inability for anyone to defend themselves. Why is this such a hard lesson for liberals to grasp?
What you have to understand is GUNS dont kill people people kill people,you take away the gun from citizens and you have every bad guy in town taking what he wants when he want it ,and you cant stop him as far as the nursing home it was a gun free zone dont figure that some one would go there now would it ? wake up AMERICA the government is against you and there going after your rights one at a time.
As the little girl in the 1980s flick, “Poltergeist,” said, “They’re back.” Now, after consciously maintaining a low profile the last two years, even though the Democratic Party maintained a majority in both houses of the Congress, the gun-control crowd is stirring. Yes, they’re back. And they’re feeling their oats…
Bob Barr can’t trick me. It’s April 1st. April fool everybody. He almost got me too. Now let’s get back to the real world. The gun-control crowd knows that Americans, enlistment and commissioned officers are going to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. So the gun-control crowd can take our guns if they can pry them from our cold dead hands.
No body’s gonna take my guns away from me. I bought them legally and until congress made some change in the constitution about my right to bear arms I will and continue to do so.
I know plenty of unstable people who bought guns legally. At a recent visit to a friend, her son, who was in Afganistan and clearly has PTSD (he’s taking a lot of pain killers as well), was walking around with a handgun stuffed in the back of his pants. He has a lot of anger issues and is just the type of person who should not be walking around with a gun on him. He has a permit though. This is precisely the issue with guns in this country. The laws we have don’t keep guns out of the hands of people who should not be able to purchase them legally. I know you can’t keep someone from buying one illegally, but we really need to do a better job of not selling them and issuing permits for concealed carry to people who are unstable.
Gregg, I’m actually against the war on drugs; just like I would’ve been against prohibition; just like I’m against measures that limit the civil rights of certain groups. I believe in reasonable controls and legislation on firearms and I’m a big proponent of the background check and programs like the gun coupon system in North Carolina. The problem is that the government doesn’t understand how to enact effectively legislation and when they luck into it they usually turn it into a revenue draw (like the gun coupon system in NC). The people who want strict gun control have an agenda based on either a poor understanding of statistics or an irrational fear of an inanimate object due to sheer ignorance. The assault weapon ban was useless. The Brady Bill gave us background checks, fine. The ammo serialization legislation that has materialized recently is poorly thought out and over complicated and the the Blair Holt bill is onerous and provides no real improvement over the system already in place. The only real benefit is that they make people feel better. Positive feelings don’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals. My guns live in a safe that weighs almost 1,000 pounds, a little more substantial than your trigger locks. So, while I’m sure it’s easier to build your straw man and roll with it, the reality is a lot more complicated.
Also, on the subject of assault weapons. I get asked from time to time why I “need” a military rifle. Let me lay it out for you. I live in a first world industrialized society. I drive a decent car, I live in a nice place, and I shop at pretty good stores. All of my “needs” are taken care of by my decent salary. The rest of my income that isn’t devoted to needs is devoted to something called “wants.” Wants are things I don’t need but I like to have. If you don’t live in a agrarian subsistence based culture you can buy wants. I want assault weapons and I can afford to have them, so I do. Shooting is my hobby and a lot of them have historical significance and I collect them. I’m not shooting them at you so it’s none of your business. You can’t drive a BMW, go to grad school, or live in a five bedroom house and then ask me about MY needs. I don’t really need anything but food, water, and shelter, neither do you.
It amazes me how your twisted minds work. they don’t want to ake guns away oh ye of little knowledge. the guns you have they do not want. They want to make sure those who get the go through the right process to get them. What kind of hunting can you do with an assualt rifle. What that what you need to kill a little frighten deer? There should be laws that makes it difficult to get a gun and stricter laws to punish those that sell them on the black market. If I brought a gun and sold it to someone who could not legally purchase one, if he should use that in a crime I should be charged as an accessory. What about the teen who stole 4 of his fathers gun while he was out of town and they had to shut down the school? What if your kids were in that school or Columbine, or the school in Arkansas. Wake up it’s not about taking guns away. The gun control group are the one that pushed for tougher laws for crimes committed with a firearm. Where were y’all hunting something that can’t hunt you back?
Jimbo all of that sounds nice but you are correct as I do not live in a 5-bedroom home but a 6 in Larwenceville (almost Loganville) actually. I have my Masters’ from FIU (Florida International University). I probably have owned more weapons and fired more than you have (an assumption on my part due to I spent 10 years in the military). I have shot every thing from a grease gum to a 50 call. My argument is not to take away guns as you may propose however I understand the ease at which they are made available in certain communities. I have three kids and when they go to school I worry about some maniac mad for some unknown reason. I own my own business (which is for the most part cash based) so I am a potential target. I have a 38 in my business, a 9 in my car and yet I still worry ass to which nut wants me to make his day. Many people who carry guns talk bold and I will give them that because carrying gives one s sense of power. However until you have taken a life (not of an animal) you really have no clue. The 2nd ammendment was written in a different time and era, when we were called terrorist by England. I love what it stands for and was willing to die to protect all they stood for, however that does not mean we should not have control over something like just because I like it.
Gregg – obviously you are unware that there are already laws o nthe books dealing with the exact scenarios you laid out (other than the anti-hunting comment, can’t help you there PETA boy). Did you follow NYC’s lawsuits agains the gun dealers from the South re straw purchases. Fill out paperwork, wiating period, etc. But you expect perfect rules and regs in an imperfect world. Do guns do good in the hands of “normal” folk. Look at the statistics in places like Kennesaw were home-gun ownership was mandatory. What happened to the crime rate? You want to sensationalize random, sporadic incidents like the guys with road rage, of the PTSD case. balance those agains the millions of law-abiding gu owners who don’t have road rage or PTSD. How does banning guns from a national park (which is our land after all) equate to tougher laws for crimes committed with a gun. Every wonder whether the outcome of that vagrant murdering the woman on the Silver Comet Trial might have been different if she were armed? Course not. Liberals never rationalize, and if you want to frustrate a liberal, just present the facts that their emotional outlook on everything can’t process. Face facts, the anti-gun crown wants to destroy the 2d Amendment, take guns away from the law abiding citizenry, and that’s the truth. What’s next dude. The tired old argument about cars killing people so ban cars. If you can’t see what the real agenda is I fell sorry for you, cause one day you;re going to wake up and your beloved elected “leaders” will have enacted a law that effects you, but there won’t be anyone left to hear your outrage.
Thank you Songbird! I thought i was the only one that understood what this means. This is just common sense if you got them fine, but if your kids take them to school then you should be charged at least for negligence.
They do want the guns I have. Cities like Washington DC, Chicago, and San Francisco have made that perfectly clear.
I don’t know anyone who uses an assault rifle to hunt. It’s a poor hunting weapon, we use them for target practice. We have deer rifles for hunting deer, oh but a deer rifle does pretty well since that’s what the guy used to shoot up that nursing home and one played a prominent role in the UT Austin shooting of 1966. Then, my legal genius, you talk about how laws should be stricter! Well it’s already a felony to use a gun in a crime and a felony to furnish a gun to a felon. It’s also a felony to possess a gun illegally. Should we kill them? What is your solution? The problem is with enforcement, not punishment. What about the teen that stole four guns? That was theft, the kid was a criminal, stealing is what criminals do. I would prefer that people keep all their guns in a safe that a kid can’t access, but people do and frankly there are plenty of children in this country that have a gun in their closet that don’t do anything of the sort. If one person does a thing should punish everyone who has the potential to do the same? NO. Let’s talk about school shootings. More people will die this week in car accidents than have been killed in these infamous school shootings since 1966 (CDC mortality statistics and a CNN article on infamous school shootings). Oh, except Chicago (which has broad bans on firearms) which had 100 kids die in shootings at public schools last year (according to the Chicago Tribune). How can you make something more strict than a total ban? Why have murders in DC never dropped below the 1976 level when they instituted their handgun ban? Banning handguns makes it pretty hard for anyone to get them and yet their murders stayed above the 1976 level despite a decline the city’s population (statistics from the CDC and Metropolitan DC police).
A dad my point is that even without training if she was armed she would have been in more danger. Many of you have and used guns for years however I probably can take it away from you and use it on you if you give me the slightest opening. Being armed does not equate being safe. Being armed may make you feel safe but are you really safe. If you are so safe why do you lock your doors at night, you are armed, they may be armed but you have the advantage. You know the terrian far better than they do. leave them open and leave anote welcoming them. Again lets have this issue after you have used it and it takes you years not weeks or months to learn to cope with the act you committed. Then and then we can really blog abd talk about this.
Do you know what the leading reason is PTSD is? It’s not medication or something in the air, it is people haunting you everyday of your waking life. We don’t even daydream for the fear they are there too.
In my opinion that makes you worse than me Gregg. Assault weapons are used in about 2% of all gun crimes.. handguns are in the high 70’s so you pose a greater threat to society than I do. Your outrage is fine, but your understanding of the risk guns pose is flawed. Your kids are more likely to be killed in an alcohol related accident (or any accident really) than by a gun.
Guns are involved in homicides (including the cops) about 12 or 14,000 times in a year.. out of 300 million people or an average 2.2 million deaths. You could get into age and racial demographics and it becomes a lot more likely, but it doesn’t sound like your kids are in a bad neighborhood or going to risky school so they’re probably less likely than most to die from a gun related incident. Did you know that guns kill about 1,600 people a year in accidents? Out of over 100,000 accidental deaths a year.. More people drown.
I’m not saying your wrong, I’m just saying with your specific concerns you should probably find another soap box.
First of all, the reducio ad Hitlerum is evidence that you know that your argument is weak.
I have no problem with enforcing current gun laws and requiring a background check prior to the purchase of a gun. I also have no problem with an assault weapon ban.
And Gregg is correct about safety: having a gun does NOT make you more safe. If you have a concealed weapon and someone pulls a gun on you, your gun isn’t doing you any good, for example.
Anyway, if we worked on other policies in this country, then we won’t feel the need to have guns for “protection”.
Jimbo the point is not the “school shootings” as much as they are who is doing the shooting. I remember running around shooting people as a kid and somehow they all survived. Of course I had a toy gun then, but I did not realize the totality of the act until later in life Jimbo. Again I am not attacking gun ownership and you are very wrong if that is what you are getting. We have to have laws. I love to speed and have a car that can probably get close to 150 like it was nothing but for driver’s education and the law I do not. Will it work all of the time, I think there are only a very few things in life that works all the time.
Oh Jimbo, Jimbo, Jimbo have you never modified a AR-15 it is nothing but a M-16 in diguise. and you comment about them being terrible hunting weapons I tend to disagree with you. If they were why would they be used when the stakes are the highest. Just take a breath, aim, and touch the trigger as though you are not trying to discard your round peep up just in time to watch the explosion.
Jimbo in what locatin was Columbine, the school yard in Arkansas, or VT for that matter. You make 2.2 million deaths seem like nothing. As though that is a number to thumb your nose at. Tell me what if someone you loved was in that 2.2 million, then it wouldn’t be just a number anymore right. Then something needs to been done about crime right? My point is I don’t want to wait until it affects me to take action.
Joe, makes the most vaild point, I have seem dead men with guns in their hands Including and not limited to police officers. It seems pro-gun people would like to have the old west back complete with showdowns at high noon!
Gregg, I’m not going to talk to you about the superiority of one weapon over another or why militaries use the weapons they use or what makes a weapons superior to another. I don’t have that kind of time. I have an AR15, I’m intimately familiar with the M16A2 and I know why they’re different from an AR10, an HK416, or an AK47. I know I CAN take a deer with one and why they’re better than a Remington 700 chambered in .270 Winchester (my deer cartridge of choice) for some combat applications.
Also, you’re supporting my argument Gregg. You CAN have a car that goes 150mph. No one is trying to ban them. Some people WILL go 150mph and they will risk the consequences. I’d much rather have that than a law that we may have no sports cars. I agree with the concept of training and the requirement to train, it’s one of the beefs I have with the Georgia CCW requirements we have now. Train train train the best you can as often as you can. Will it be enough? Not every time, even the best fail sometime, but it’s better than having nothing at all. You brought up school shootings and a maniac in your kids’ school, I was merely pointing out how that’s not a very high risk compared to everything else.
Also, why do I lock my doors if I have guns? Defense in depth! A high wall doesn’t work without a strong gate.
Also this argument isn’t necessarily about defense as much as it’s about ownership. I know plenty of people who have a lot of guns and no intention of every carrying one for protection. It’s just not their thing. Further, a gun is a burden, not an object of power. Anyone who tells you different doesn’t know what they’re in for.
How could Jennifer Ewing have been in “more danger”? She was murdered.
And if I perceive someone as a threat, they will not get close enough to disarm me. A threat will be dealt with before they get that close.
If enough of us are out there, those they prey upon us will not know which of us are armed and which are not, and that will act as a deterrent to some of them. For the rest, they run the risk of being DRT.
Gregg, life is risk, you’re just playing the numbers. 2.2 million is nothing compared to the 305 million people who will live or the 4 million people born in a year. Death is a natural state and we all must die. You assume far too much. I’ve buried a lot of my family and a number of friends over the years and it started when I was six. I’ve lost people to unnatural causes and disease and more than a few I lost well before their time. Losing someone to violence or similar circumstances I blame the perpetrator and not their tools.
As for the wild west comment, there are hundreds of thousands of people in Georgia alone with CCWs. There are 40-60 million households with firearms. I think you’re offbase when you assume that A: I’m off base by defending this right. or B: that I defend my other rights just as ferociously. You seems to revel in assumptions, stereotypes, and straw men.. but you have no real point. You’re mad and you want someone to do something about it and that may as well be the government.
EJ Moosa one question have you ever discharged a weapon at anybody?
Jim, I understand the risk and chances. I also know the plane crashes happen less the automobile crashes but that doesn’t stop me from wondering if this is the one. I am glad the NTSB has so many regulation and mandates in place to make the air a safer place, do you agree Jimbo?
And yet when a plane crashes it was usually in violation of those regulations.. do we need more regulations? Or should we better enforce the ones we have?
Jimbo, you wrote:
You’re mad and you want someone to do something about it and that may as well be the government.
Who better whether it is the local, state or federal government I pay my taxes to. Can I rely on you Jimbo.
oh Jimbo I am not mad, we learn how to control that simple thing and use it to our advantage. Anger is for cowards to show they may do something a wasted energy if you ask me.
Jimbo I will see you later my boss (wife) is making me go pick up supplies and the kids. The life of a concerned father.
Enjoyed you feedback though Jim and I actually had to agree with some of your arguments.
It’s cool Gregg, part of the beauty of this nation is that we should be able to disagree. I only have a problem when someone wants to legislate their beliefs without clear benefit to the general populace or to fix something that isn’t necessarily broken.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the idiot we have in office acting as President are trying to form a Dictatorship in America! They are trying to run banks and the car industry and any other company that is stupid enough to fall victim by taking the bailout money! I guess the idiots in Washington will start taking knives, chainsaws, baseball bats and hockey sticks next. Quite simply, if you want to kill someone an idiot can find a way! Government is getting too big and getting involved in citizens lives way too much. I just can’t believe there are enough idiots to keep voting for Pelosi, Reid, Franks, Dodd but wait I guess that’s how Obama got elected!
No I haven’t. But I have had training and I am prepared to if warranted.
I have, however, had a gun drawn and aimed at me by a thug. One can choose to ignore the risks and accept the consequences. Or one can choose to be prepared and do what is necessary should the need ever arise. The choice is yours. But do not make the choice for me.
Despite your fears, many Americans use weapons to successfully protect themselves and those that are important to them.
As it stands now a thief/home envader has to ask themselves the question, “does the homeowner have a gun”? If the idiots in Washington had their way and outlawed guns it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out there would be a lot more burgularies, rapes, etc. What the hell would stop someone, i.e. thug, gang from coming into anyone’s home and raping your wife, kids and stealing anything they want right in front of you, if you have no defense? What if a lot of terrorists came into your community that were armed and just started killing people. Who’s going to stop them? Why do you not think other countries haven’t invaded America. The British tried but thanks to guns and our forefathers (many were just farmers) they kept America free! Everyone is so consumed thinking how society is so advanced that things like this just doesn’t happen in America or won’t happen in America. Well, were you suprised when terrorists took over airplanes with boxcutters and crashed them causing more casualties in a matter of minutes than Pearl Harbor? I for one want to have the ability to defend myself and my family! I want to have the ability to defend myself when I’m 60 years against a 26 year old gang member or thug that has broken into my home or tried to carjack me!
In the USA each year, an average of 90,000 people die as a result of doctors’ mistakes. Should we pass laws limiting doctors or outlawing doctors? Or perhaps, “one doctor a month” laws? Of course not! We prefer to educate people as to the danger doctors present so we can make informed decisions. Duh! But wait! Liberals would rather take the “shotgun approach” and just, because it’s “easier”, outlaw guns or, make them, along with their ownwrs, politically incorrect. Here’s what others have said about our rights:
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
“They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania..
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others.” -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785).
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
“The Constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” -Thomas Jefferson.
“(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -James Madison.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.
“Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion…in private self defense…” -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
I honestly don’t understand the mindset of liberals’ that they think we have somehow become “civilized” and the access to arms is no longer needed. Preposterous claims, indeed! But mankind has had to put up with hoplophobes for about as long as idiots and morons have roamed the earth. We should outlaw five gallon buckets because, “If it saves just one child, it will be worth it!” Swimming pools have taken the life of many a child, but teaching them to swim is preferable to having them drown to learn a lesson, eh? Lesson concluded for today, class. Have a good ‘un!
“Actually, I was lying about my machine guns and anti-tank weapon. I’m
actually the type of guy who if confronted by a criminal, would curl up
in a ball and blubber…
PLEASE DON’T KILL ME! TAKE MY DAUGHTER AND DO WHAT
YOU LIKE, OR MY WIFE, JUST PLEASE PLEASE DON’T HURT
ME, I KNOW YOU HAD A HARD CHILDHOOD AND I FEEL
YOUR PAIN…”
Or at least, you’d want laws passed to make it so I couldn’t
defend myself, just like you. F**K YOU, you anti-self-defense
worm!!!
I keep hearing that 95% of the guns the drug cartels are using are smuggled from the U.S. but i have seen no proof! All they say are the drug cartels are armed with machine guns,RPG’s (rocket launchers) and hand gernades!! Where can you buy these at???? no where in the U.S.!!
Hand gernades are made for the military and its illegal to own them,no one sells them! Rpg’s are not even made in the U.S. and again its illegal to own one ,No one sells them in the U.S. Duh! Machine guns are sold but they cost an arm and leg and its an act of congress to buy one then after buying it,three months of paperwork! they check on it! you can’t leave the state without permission with it.What i’m getting at here people is that nothing but maybe a few pistols are being smuggled into mexico from the U.S. and that is illegal as well,so catch them!
All that other stuff is either coming from corrupt mexican military or more likely from some of the central american and south america countries,there is millions of real Ak47’s full auto all over south america not like the semi auto ones here which i might add are in short supply since they were banned from import in 1994 and the real ones can be had for as little as 25.00 american in south america,there is thousands of Rpg’s also since Russia and cuba and China sent them to El salvedore years ago and Columbia Rebels import them and sell them to the drug cartels as well ,hand gernades come from there as well!It’s much easier to smuggle them across the southern borders of Mexico than across ours!! unless you are a total idiot! you would realize all this is true!Why would you go to the trouble of trying to smuggle an ar 15 from the U.S. that is semiauto cost 2,000.00 have to get someone to fill out paperwork that if the thing is found in Mexico is going to lead the Law right back to the person who brought it here!!When you can as a drug dealer with millions just call up your friend in South america and say send me 100 Ak47’s 2 case hand gernades and 6 Rpg’s!
Sure Juan! That will be 10,500.00 American and shipping will be with on Hoze’s mule train next wed as he comes over border.Oh you went over the 10,000 mark you get a free 100 lbs of fresh columbian coffee or 2,000 rds of 7.62×39 ammo which do you want. or if you need it overnite we have an old plane that will bring it in over the southern border tomarrow nite!.All the hoopla about its coming from the U.S. is fantsy,smoke and mirrors to fan the flame of their fire to disarm the american citizens because armed citizens are harder to control,unarmed citizens OR slaves as i like to call them are alot easier to control! But the idiots will believe the Obama,Hillary,Kerry crowds version!
Because they are BAAAAA! sheep!
Thor
recently a woman who had a suspended lisence, drove, crossed the line, and killed her young daughter. We all took drivers training, we all know the laws, for some reason, she decided the law did not apply to her. I worked with a guy that lost his lisence for drinking and driving. On his fifth arrest in 2001, he lost his liscense until 2013. We all know that this was not his fifth time. Again, the law does not apply to him. How many teenagers can buy alcohol legally? None that I know of, however, they still die in road related accidents. Now I really will get off target here, but, why does it take decades sometimes, to execute a murderer on death row, but an innocent baby can be executed in nine months or less, with no legal representation?? And finally, I always loved guns even as a child, but never owned one until the great gun grab of President Clinton, circa 1993. And to those of you who ask what does one “need” with a assault weapon for hunting, well, I regret to inform you that the bill of rights isnt about hunting, and it is not the bill of “needs”, but the bill of rights. And for those of you who state that the constitution was written before these hi tech weapons, well, I will gladly step in line when digital cameras are banned, and 35 mm film is regulated to eliminate child pornography. Certain extremist religions are banned because they do not wage peace, ban the internet, because whoda thunk? And ban paper porn, and porn dvd’s and videos. I have a longer list, however, I realize that I am boring some of you, and dont wish to take any more of your time. The old saying applies, dont confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up!!
Thor, Good point, If people really want to see where the guns in Mexico are coming from, go to the Arizona Republic web site and look under the article called (Gun Strick Mexico points to U.S.) and take a look at the guns that are being sold in a gun store (IN) Mexcico and then try and tell me that the U.S. is the blame (BULL CRAP)
It makes sense that the AJC prints Bob Barrs opinions on April’s Fools Day… How appropriate! We need to regulate and control the sale of guns. You have the right to own one if you are sane, mature, and have been properly trained to use one. It is just common sense.
The problem with the anti-gunners is that they lump all gun issues into one pot. The problem is more complex than that.
First off, the laws that are currently on the books need to be enforced. A lot of antis want to create laws that already exist.
Secondly, a vast majority, if not almost all gun violence is committed with illegally purchased guns by criminals, not law abiding citizens. Law abiding gun owners committ less crime with their weapons than police officers.
What needs to happen is targeted lesgislation to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Punishing 100% of the people for the ALREADY ILLEGAL actions of a small % is ridiculous. If the government is incapable of enforcing their own laws they need to look in the mirror instead of punishing the ones who obey the law. It is obsurd.
I don’t mind closing the gunshow loophole, I don’t mind training requirements (provided they are actually beneficial) and I don’t mind throwing the book at distributors and shop owners who break the law.
I do have a problem with hijacking the Constitution and trying to push an agenda by manipulation, fear, and lies.
Another thing I want to get off my chest is the antis and leftists trying to effectivly ban guns without “banning” guns by taxing ammo out of existence, playing the environment card, etc. How is that any different then the voting tax back in the day to prevent blacks, women, and the poor from voting that was ruled unconstitutional because it blocked access to a constitutional right to vote??
The supreme court held up the individual right to bear arms in the heller case this past summer so shouldn’t that right extend to anything that would hamper individual gun rights, like ecessive ammuniton tax or banning lead bullets?
The Mexican gangs have full auto weapons, many that DO come from the U.S. The M16’s are sent to Mexico “legally”, from the U.S. govt to the mexican govt, to help “fight crime”. With all the corruption, these guns immediately are put to use by the gangs. Those in the police and military supplement their income and have 2 employers-their govt, and the drug cartels. They use the U.S. govt supplied weapons in both of their jobs. The Mexican govt. is unwilling to supply serial #s of “U.S.” sourced weapons because it will show that these weapons could not be obtained from U.S. retail stores, even without an “assault weapon” ban in place.
Bob you disappoint me. I happen to remember that you wrote a letter back in January supporting a certain individual for Attorney General. Giving him your glowing endorsement. Let me quote you:
“Mr. Holder and I may have had disagreements over policy matters… However, I never had any reason to question his personal and professional integrity, or his deep understanding of and commitment to our Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights… to serve the interests of all of the American people and not just those of the President they serve…”
He wrote a brief in support of the DC gun ban, he want to shut down gun shows, he’s for national firearms registration, waiting periods, gun rationing, etc, etc, etc. Now you can’t possibly be surprised that it’s Eric Holder who is one of the ones leading the charge for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.
Maybe “his deep understanding of and commitment to our Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights….” doesn’t include the 2nd Amendment.
[...] also like to point you to former Congressman Bob Barr’s post over at the AJC about HB 614. At some point today, the Georgia Senate will consider HB 614, the “Georgia Prescription [...]
I have a question for the anti-gun people. Your home is invaded by a nu-job that has a knife and is planning to rape your children and kill your family. Do you call 911 for help? How long does it take for police to arrive? How long does it take for this nut-job to have his way with you? What are the police going to find when they finally show up?
Now same senario with a gun owner. The owner pulls his gun and either holds the nut-job or kills him and he won’t bother anyone again.
First socialism then fascism. Guns? What guns? I have no guns. Hitler first made a law for every firearm to be registered. Then once he knew where they were located he marched the streets of every city, town and village to collect them. Then he collected all of the unarmed people that he wished. I have no guns.
I’m not sure I would as generous as you are towards Holder, BB. From my perspective he did nothing more than what he was supposed to. The case was flawed because of incompetance and would have been thrown out regardless of the fact that Stevens is a crook..which, btw, he is.
Measuring competancy using the Bush administration as a benchmark is rather weak. The standards you should be using should be much, much higher.
Jack and bugger, you guys are part of the PROBLEM. Truth does not fall along party lines – both sides (all sides, actually, since you seem to think Libertarian is somehow a synonym for Republican?) have some fair and valid critiques of the other.
But for you to brand BB as “the new Tucker” suggests that your ideological revulsion to ANY position not in lockstep with neocon thought is clouding your better judgment.
Copyleft,
Read your history, once Hitler had disarmed the citizens only the government had guns. Then they went door to door and took whomever and whatever the government wanted. Then the german “army” (not the civilians) marched acrossed Europe through the countries that had already limited what weapons their citizens could have.
The second amendment was passed for the citizen to be able to protect them selves against governmental tyranny. To take away the citizens weapons is an invatation for the government to take anything and anyone from you for their own use.
The Bible warns us of goernment and it’s real purpose.
1 Samual 8:10-18 says:
Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 (The Lord)said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle [b] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
Copyleft
Read histiry. Hitlers government took all of the citizens weapons away from them. That left only his army with weapons. He was then able to go door to door in Germany and take what ever and whomever he wanted without anyone to defend them.
As is happening now, many citizens thought it a good idea to eliminate the private weapons.
In Australia the government has outlawed most citizens from possessing weapons. The crime rate has skyrocketed.
Don’t stand by silent over gun control!!
“They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
~ Rev. Martin Niemoeller, German Lutheran Pastor ~1945
Jack and Bugger are two shining examples of why the GOP was left for dead the last two election cycles and will wander in the wilderness for 2-3 more.
Dear GOP: PLEASE, oh please keep the hardline stance on anything that’s not ultraconservative and give the Dems enough time to clean up your messes. Maybe then we can restore America to it’s glory.
I’m not following the neocon argument here. Holder is letting a Republican – who was persecuted by Republicans – off the hook, and you’re against that? I guess you’re hatred of any Democrat outweighs your love for anything Republican. Mindless minions (regardless of party) are pathetic – what a sad and angry way to view the world.
Holder did the right thing in this case. There are some real right wing nuts on this board who would definitely compromise their integrity just to be able to say they’re right. The term for them is JERKS!!
fearless fosNOdick, yeah, Bookman doesn’t like it when conservatives can defend and turn the tables on his liberal goons. Oh, by the way, I’m still smarter than you are, troglodyte.
You are crazy. Holder has not even been in his position for 3 months and you believe you have sufficient information to make that statement? I think not.
First of all, Holder is finally trying to clean out the stench from 8 years of Ashcroft, Gonzales and company. While I believe Stevens is a slimedog of the worst kind I do believe in the rule of law. If the prosecution engaged in the type of misconduct alleged, and violated the law by not providing the defense information they are required by law to provide, then I believe Holder is correct in recommending dismissal.
This is something no one in the Bush Administration would have considered, actually evualuating cases based on the law. Now I do have to wonder why they went after Stevens unless they felt that in the shadow of the U.S. Attorney firings and other missteps they needed to present a cover of fairness or not.
Please don’t come to conclusions until the time has come. Until then enjoy the kool-aid that Rush and company are providing free of charge.
Once again Barr dares to agree with somethng a Democrat does and the kool-aid drinking conservatards bash him for it. Thinking for himself and standing on principals is unfortunately a big taboo in the Republican party. It got Barr legislated out his own district by his fellow Republicans.
Since when did the GOP become the Commumist Party where loyalty to the party is paramount? At least the Democrats let the voters decide when they want someone like Leiberman(sp)out of the party. Republicans just gerrymander your seat away, no vote needed.
Hmm, that a pretty selective issue — and a miniscule one — to cover. What about the rest of Holder’s legacy from the Reno years, which should cause any “libertarian” to recoil with horror? Is it really more important to walk a pet pony named Contrary than to cover an issue as important as the Justice Department?
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. All public comment should be banned, after indicment? This is the case in most countries. Too often, in the US win at any cost seems to have become the mantra of prosecutors. I have found it truly amazing that the previous administration, tried to get individuals insurance coverage for litigation removed from them. America wake up, Justice is neither blind or even. Freedom is not free and remember the old saying “who is watching the watchers?”
SwedeAtlanta, yes, I am crazy. That’s been certified. Yet, still not nuts enough to think that holder actually knows what he’s doing. I didn’t drink any kool-aid, idiot, I call it as I see it. The repub prosecution screwed up big time in the Stevens case. Holder knows that, and doesn’t have the ability, intellect, or evidence to uphold the initial conviction. Do I care in the long run? Use to, now, not so much. Politicians always seem to find an escape mechanism, whether by a loophole in the law, or a blunder courtesy of the keystone prosecution. Hell, Bill Handel could have managed this one better.
Get back to the Vodak. Don’t drive & don’t vote.
I am over 66 years old & have participated in & discussed politics with
hundreds of state & federal elected office holders over the years. I can truly say that I have never met a conservative Republican
– when you get down to the details they all have have Big Government/Liberal leanings. Only a Liberal would object to the freeing
of a man convicted on trumped charges.
He’s not cleansing it, he is polluting it beyond remediation!!The Republicans really abdicated their role when they offered up no opposition to this guy’s appointment to AG.He fits right in with the rest of them though, CORRUPT to the core.
They should be in school! If they do not like school, they should be placed in a Military style classroom setting to show them the alternative and give them some personal discipline. Truancy laws should be enforced. Does the law allow them out on weekends? In the custody of an adult? If not how can they go to church on Sunday? Buy ammo for their guns? (Doesn’t Kennesaw still have the mandatory gun ownership law?)
I might be mistaken, but I think you meant to state:
“For example, city leaders in Kennesaw recently extended the hours during which a person under 18 years of age may NOT lawfully traverse its streets and other public areas to include the hours from 8:30 AM to 2:30 PM”
But regardless…I am at a loss for words. In my beliefs this is so inherently wrong and unconstitutional (freedom of assembly anyone?) as to be abhorrent. So much for due process too. Hey, I’ve got an idea…let’s just declare martial law 24/7/365 and be done with it. That even gets rid of that pesky Habeas Corpus thing.
How long until they make a curfew for anyone? That will surely cut down on crime. The American people have spoken. They had a chance to stand up and demand an end to the ever encroaching government but instead chose more of the same. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is whose freedoms they will take away. The American people never met a law they didn’t like. It is my hope that these young people who cannot live their lives in freedom will grow up to vote Libertarian. I hope I live long enough to see the day the American people wake up and realize with freedom comes responsibility and it’s worth it! By the way, I’m the one who voted for you Bob.
While watching Face the nation a week ago, President Obama was asked if he thought we needed more gun laws to help stem the border wars to which he replied ” we dont need new laws, we need to enforce the ones we already have”
This is a deplorable law!! So what if teenagers walk outside any time of day? No one has the right to assume criminal activity. And if these kids are not in school, they are missing out and will pay for it in other ways. If, as an adult, I were brought into a curfew, I would refuse. Once again, Mr. Barr points out the encroachment of Big Brother–please keep us informed. You already have my vote!!
Last week I watched a well organized raid on a store by about 40 young people on their lunch break from a nearby school.They came in a bunch,all at once,they positioned themselves quickly,two grabbed some candy bars and clowned around paying for them.Several others blocked the clerk’s view.The rest filled back packs with soda,cookies and candy bars.One wears a back pack,two others fill it.In less than two minutes they were gone.They streamed out and returned to school with their plunder.Any wonder people want a curfew?
The continued attack on the 2nd Amendment won’t soon end, but will (rather) increase…irregardless of the empty lip service “Bacrock Obuma” pays to questions of further “gun control” laws. The Dems will leverage this incidents (like the possible PYSOP in NY & probable one at VaTech) to “justify” further infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights.
All of you liberal are sniveling about the “rights” of teenagers are forgetting one small detail….the only “rights” a CHILD has, is the right to food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and an education. Any other “rights” granted are the purview of the CHILD’S parent!
More problems regarding our youth would be solved overnight if a child’s Mother and Father started acting like PARENTS instead of “family unit partners” or “buddies”. A family is NOT a democracy; if the parents can be held legally responsible for a child’s illegal acts, then the PARENT reserves the right to set limits on the child’s behaviors.
If I have learned anything about “Modern” Parenting, its that the “enlighted” people writing books and giving lectures on the “correct” way a child should be raised….usually DON’T have any children of their own!
I recently learned that yet another criminal government in Florida has thoroughly demonstrated that they are anti-American idiots by enacting an ordinance that outlaws people who are listed on any Sex Offender Registry from going to the beaches, parks, zoos, libraries, and similar locations. The criminal regime which has done this is the Lee County government. They were encouraged to pass the ordinance by the County’s criminal Sheriff.
Their illegal ordinance applies to everyone, regardless of if a person is on probation or parole or not, and regardless of when a person completed his/her legally prescribed sentence (literally could’ve been decades ago). People who support these laws are not only uninformed and stupid, they are immoral and completely un-American.
If you are a socialist, you want gun control or guns outlawed. If you are a real American, you believe in the ideal of freedom and the bill of rights. Can we have a socialist government with our present constitution? My right to have something does not matter what I do with it. I am innocent until proven guilty. If I want an assault rifle, a machine gun, or 40mm cannon, why does that bother you? I am a law abiding citizen. Murder and such goes back to Cain slew Able. However the world progressed and populations increased despite the lack of freedoms for the common folk. I will exercise my constitutional right to bear arms and I will fight for real Amercians to have any weapon that person wants. Freedom is Freedom unless you are socialist. Please do not tell me you are not a socialist by wanting gun control… I hate lies.
Vexorg, at 17 I was emancipated and had already been to basic training for the Army Reserves (split option soldier). I had a GED, a job, and a military calling, I couldn’t have done that with cops on my back all the time. Are you saying I didn’t have any rights?
Copyleft, if you can’t tell the difference between weapons in the hands of the state and weapons in the hands of the people then you’ve got issues. The German STATE armed itself in the 1930s while it simultaneously disarmed the German PEOPLE. The state did this to make the consolidation of power and the elimination of dissenters easier.
When the night of broken glass occurred, it was perpetrated, or at least led, by SA thugs. Had I been a Jewish store or home owner I would’ve been much happier that night with a gun in my house than not. Having a gun in my possession might have made my eventual escape to the UK or US easier too. Actually, if SA members had been armed on the night of the long knives, maybe the SS wouldn’t have managed to kill so many of them, so I suppose they got theirs. Also, history tells us how effective armed citizens were in places like France, Poland, and the Netherlands. It’s just that the allies had to take the trouble of arming them after they became occupied.
Oh, and you clearly don’t understand what a militia is, or why it’s different from the standing military of the US or why the Constitution says what it does. I don’t really blame you for the misunderstanding. Most people have had their perception twisted by the government over the last century or so. Still, it’s really hard to fear the people while hiding behind that big standing army of theirs. I see now why so many state constitutions claim that standing armies are a danger to liberty. Sort of makes you wonder why a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, but a standing army is a threat, eh?
Well, they need to give these little punks a good beating upside the head and shoulders. Everybody knows when you see a kid without his parents there’s trouble in the making. Besides, they can’t buy a beer when they’re 18 so why should they be allowed to walk around when they’re under 21? They need to be at home or school, not out bothering decent folk.
It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.”—Jeremiah 10:23. You see what happens when man tries to come up with is own rules. We truly are silly people aren’t we?
Well, this is a result of the non-use of common sense in our laws. I refer to Prohibition as an example of this. You just outlaw (enter shady item here) just because a small element leads to (enter illegal activity here).
This basically criminilizes activity which most people know will hurt nobody.
These prohibited activities include: alcohol, drugs, gambling, censorship, crossing the border, carrying lots of money, gun control, and now includes curfews.
These activities in and of themselves hurt nobody. Alcohol and drugs in moderation are okay, but in excess for a very few lead to violence and crime.
Having a poker game at home with a bunch of friends hurts nobody, but the lure of some easy money can lead a very small minority to crime.
Someone reading banned literature hurts nobody. Now, if they act in a criminal way based on the literature, punish the criminal, not the literature.
Crossing a border into the US now gives the government reason to search with no cause. So watch out if your computer happens to have inappropriate images saved. If not, you still may not get the computer back.
A report from last year had authorities stop a person carrying 40,000 USD in cash. There was no other reason to suspect him of anything. But because some drug runners carry loads of cash, just having lots of cash in your possession warrants suspicion.
Guns are banned in many situations, some common sense, but most because of the fear of a small minority who would use them for illegal purposes.
Curfews are another government intrusion that punishes the innocent as well as the guilty.
In all of these cases, there you suspicion or punishment of the innocent. Where is the common sense in that? Where is the Liberty?
Oh right.. and it if you really want to get into it, the third reich re-armed in violation of the Treaty of Versailles which just goes to show you how well arms control works when the subject of those controls has no interest in complying.
Your right that the US has no business propping up the car companies. Please, for your own sake, lay off the CFB’s…your starting to sound like a GOP techno-phobe. It’s past time we started thinking about saving energy in this country. If you wont do it for the envirement then do it for your own wallet.
I haven’t seen any (anecdotal) evidence that CFLs are worse than incandescent bulbs. Ours have lasted many times longer than the bulbs they replace and use significantly less energy. I’m waiting for LED bulbs though, that will certainly be the future.
Bob, if the cars were worth a damn, we wouldn’t need warranty quarentees! As for the technology, why don’t you go back to washing your clothes by beating them on a rock?
“This era produced some of the ugliest, most underpowered and dangerous cars ever to roll off those assembly lines.” And whose fault is that? The American consumer? Oh wait, they are buying something else, if they are buying at all. Chrysler has already been bailed out, remember? How many times is enough? What should we do with their out of touch managemnt? Or is what’s left of your selective memory failing? Look at Consumer Reports latest list of the worst ten performing vehicles…most are American (Jeep has 3).
Maybe instead of putting design and performance standards on the cars,their boards should put performance and related salaries on their executives.
The manipulation of the auto industry has only begun. SUVs and pickups are once again the largest selling segment of the industry, while hybrids are sitting on the car lots. The acclaimed Prius which six months ago had a waiting list now is 80 days overstocked. Do you suppose that our auto companies will be able to build on the one segmeng of the industry where they have the edge?
Certainly not. Obama has alresdy answered that question. And what happens when people don’t buy these new government cars? The government has a whole bevy of taxing solutions which can modify the bad behavior of the auto market. they’ll start with raising gas tax to punishing levels. If that’s not enough, Roll out a carbon tax based on MPG. There is no end to tax solutions for any behavior this adim. doesn’t like.
Oh? Government regulations didn’t affect car designs in the eighties?
The 1980 Corvette California begs to differ. But it should be noted that during the 80’s (well, 1979) is when Chrysler took their loan from the government, got their legs back under them (for a few years) and paid the loan back (by 1983).
So there is some truth to both claims, that government regulation (specifically by California, but we didn’t know how properly apply environmental technologies at the time) ruined some American designs, but also that there were some positive results from loaning US automakers money.
If the manufacturers would focus on making about 6 noteworthy cars with minimal engineered obsolescence instead of 45 different halfway engineered and assembled ‘market research’ derived straw grasps they would probably be in far better shape. Bells and whistles do not disguise poor body panel alignment. The bailout money went to secure the interests of the UAW. Lobbying prowess should never be underestimated, they just exemplified this by openly robbing the American taxpayer. How the lobbying practice is allowed to continue blows my mind. ¼ of the US population would have been standing on the Whitehouse lawn with torches in 1910, but no one seems to care anymore as long as their stomach is full and their TV still works.
There is a difference between govt. regulations and takeover. GM and Chrysler are now effectively run by a govt. panel reporting one level from Obama. When you can fire the CEO or insist you allow a takeover by a foreign co. You’ve gone way past a few regulations.
My sister has a Chrysler and the check engine light stays on. It came on 6 mos after she bought this Jeep piece of (**&^!!. Its been on for months. I told her not to buy that crap and buy a Honda, now she regrets it. Now the front bearing are bad, the car has 50K miles on it.
I specifically chose a date prior to 1913 for a reason. Horrible story about the Bonus Army though, I wonder why they never deemed that important enough to teach it to us in school. Just more negative impact from wars. The poor always die, the rich always seem to better themselves.
‘Just Nasty & Mean’ is a complete neocon fool. Iran is a paper tiger and just uses threats to get attention and concessions. Bush should have dismantled the state department because his only strategy was to use foolish force to control the world’s oil. He and cheney were foolish failures.
What is Mr. Barr’s counter-proposal? He, and many other commentators, keep skipping over the fact that GM’s “firing” was a condition for the company to receive public bailout money. GM didn’t HAVE to fire its CEO… but if they come whining to us for taxpayer-funded bailouts, why SHOULDN’T we impose conditions?
The days of writing blank checks to corporations, simply because their lobbyists are “good buddies,” should be over and done with.
Jimbo, what’s the matter…..were you CAUGHT “keeping it real” and living the THUG (a.k.a. CRIMINAL) lifestyle because your Mother and Father NEGLECTED their duties as parents? The ONLY people I see whining about cops are the ones out “Perpatrating”…Waaaaa, the evil cops are picking on lil ol me because I am a wannabe criminal attempting to establish my “rep”…Waaaaaaa!
Wow…so you went to basic training as a reservist. What do you want, a medal or a chest to pin it on? I would suggest that you go down to the local VFW or American Legion Hall and take a look at some REAL heros, the ones that SERVED in the combat hellholes of Europe, The Pacific, Korea, Vietnam, and even more recent conflicts. Tell them that you proudly completed basic training and what a “real” warrior you are!
If this current trend of NEGLECT and IRRESPONSIBILITY continues, the government will eventually step in and take control. And dear “Jimbo”…if you think the police “hassling” you is bad, wait until the obamunists pass even more laws controlling your life…..because, obama’s people are smarter and know better what’s good for you – I know this, because they told me!
And it has already happened…irresponsible liberals with their “enlighted” philosophies on “new” and “modern” methods of education have turned our once great schools into to cesspools of minimum performance and undisciplined criminal hellholes where the average student fears for their safety daily, and have become nothing more than 8 hours of state-sanctioned day care.
Don’t worry “Jimbo” and all of you other fellow-traveller liberals…the obamunist are now here to save the day from all of us “evil” conservatives. HAH! 100+ days into his administration, and obama has accomplished the typical liberal agenda: NOTHING!
If you don’t want to call it “firing” then we could call it “bribery” which is exactly what you have described.
Real problem is that now Obama has mastered running an auto company, He has given Geitner the authority to fire the Mgt. of any bank he feels may not be performing well. Nationalization under the guise of being helpful.
Jake: My Honda’s check engine light came on a few months ago, I bought it used 18 months ago with 33,000 miles. I was fed up with the American cars, we had given each of the big three our hard earned money to give each a chance. They trained us well, so we have had Toyota and Honda ever since a few years ago, but alas, even they may not turn out to be all we hoped.
With that said, what the government is doing is wrong. We are headed down the wrong road and no one seems able or willing to get us back on the right one.
If the executives at GM were so good at running the company without help, why did they beg for a bailout?
Seems to me they’re asking for a favor, on our dime. And we have the right to set conditions on whether or not we bail them out. If they don’t like it, they can fail on their own.
The problem is, we’re all sitting here behind our computers talking when we should be marching on Washington and refusing to leave and demanding positive reform. What we’re doing isn’t working…..we can’t spend our way out of this mess. This is all according to the plans spelled out in “The True Story Of The Bilderburg Group”. Bob, I know you’ve probably read it. This is our government’s way of getting us in line…..
They should have never received a penny of government help in the first place. Just like any government intervention, it only prolongs the agony. If you concentrate on having your hand out, you cannot concentrate on doing your job or improving. Everyday examples are our banks and welfare recipients. Welfare recipients won’t get jobs because welfare pays better than most menial labor…But you have to start somewhere to get ahead. Banks quit lending money to anybody under a 900 credit score because they don’t need to give credit to get money from obama.
Government hand outs don’t fix anything, they only make things worse…You’d think after nearly 100 years of tried and failed socialist experiments, people would look at history and quit trying things that do not work…But oh no! Socialism will work this time! It never has and never will.
The bad news is this type of crap will continue for a while, the good news is it won’t last long, because the people will eventually run out of money to pay for failed government experiments.
Go ahead and lump ‘Homeland Security’ in with the TSA, BB. Any govt agency that abuses civil rights as much as these needs to be eliminated. Remember…all enemies foreign and domestic.
Mr. Barr, you might want to take the time learn a little about X-rays and millimeter-wave systems before denouncing their use as “harmful and dangerous.”
Such ignorance really detracts from your message about the entirely legitimate issues of privacy and civil rights.
Copy, maybe you should re-read the article. Mr Barr does not say that millimeter wave systems are “harmful and dangerous”. He states that X-rays are harmful (which they are if you overly exposed).
MChammer: You like so many other use the driver’s license analogy completly in error. Just as you need a license to drive a car in public, you also need a license to carry a loaded firearm in public. You are proposing that a license be required to simply own a gun, however a license is NOT required to own a car, only to operate it in public. Give a little more thought to your incorrect use of this analogy before espousing it in the future. You may find comfort in the fact that many other people also incorrectly use this analogy between cars and guns…
Land this plan in Cuba or everyone on board get a Franklin to the face! They have lost their mind. And it’s not just the TSA. From the school board’s zero tolerance (Remember the Tweety chain?), to the court’s zero tolerance and sex offender laws (Remember Genarlow Wilson?), the whole country has lost its mind. The people have spoken. They would trade their liberty for “security”.
Right you are, Bob. Big Brother knows where we are, who we communicate with, what we buy, and no telling what else by our voluntary use of cell phones, debit cards, grocery store discount cards, internet use, on and on. The genie is out of the bottle, and just wait until cash is no longer used, and implants are the norm. Dogs and horses have them now, how long before we start using using human chips as a “safety measure”?
There’s only one thing to do. Become really wealthy (by any means necessary) so you can drive up to your private jet and just bypass the TSA abuse. Homeland Security? Did this not not scare the crap out of you the day it was announced? Hello Stalin? Hitler? Mao? It’s okay though, just renew your faith in God this weekend folks. All is according to plan.
Like we need another reason to dislike the Bush/Cheney-paranoia created invasions into civil rights. It would be a big improvement if they would quit having chat fest at the screener, check their attitudes and just do their jobs.
It would also be an improvement of they would limit the strip searches to only attractive people.
You’re a complete IDIOT! Take the time to actually learn what TSA’s mission is..to protect the Nation’s transportation systems. I bet you’d be the first person to critize TSA if there were another 9/11. Thankfully TSA has security measures in place to prevent that type of attack again.
Barr Should Be Barred, do you sleep underneath your bed at night? Have you soiled your trousers today? What kind of Communist are you that you’d be totally and completely willing to throw away all of our freedoms as Americans for some slight measure of security?
It’s one thing to criticize if you know the details, and another to make snide comments about speculations, like what you have done here Mr. Barr. To be honest, not every method of security is very convenient to the traveling public, but, unfortunately, we can’t, as a people sacrifice our lives for the inconvenience of taking your shoes off and taking all the metal out of our pockets. I’ve been through the millimeter wave, and frankly, I didn’t mind at all. You didn’t seem to mention the presence of local law enforcement officers at St. Louis, so, we can just ignore that like you so efficiently did.
What this country needs is good, and credible questioning of the government. What it does not need is rhetoric and ignorance of fact, which you have so graciously shown here.
Sure is easy to tel who voted for our bowin pansy in chief.
Barr is dead on. A knee jerk reaction, is the tsa really going to save anyone?
It will save the job of more gov. idiots. You know the kind, they live everywhere. Something bad happened so we need a who new government Dept. Cabinet level. Right. If the airlines handed out a small one shot 410 derringer to every passenger over the age of 21 who requested one, bingo no more hijackers. Don’t worry about the one whack job, he has one shot , he is worried about the other 40-50 folks. I have seen people held in airports for stupid reasons. Want to try it, go buy a ticket, one way with cash. You will never board the plane. Have more than 5k in your pocket. ain’t gonna ride, you are a security threat. Lets not mention it is nobody s damn business when you buy a ticket or how much cash you have. Welcome to the new amerika comrade.
God hates trash, so if a man chooses to apply for and receive from the state a permit to carry a weapon, and this makes him an incestuous head case on food stamps?
Somebody different than you is GOT to be bad , huh?
If we all thought like you? one big nation of spineless libs?
I love that logic.
The TSA is nothing more than a bunch of gubmint entrenched thugs. Like our current level of cop, they prey on the power they have been given, steal what they can and ignore the civil rights of this country.
Just another excuse to screw the stupid unwashed masses. And they like it, go figure.
I am against the use of the millimeter wave devices not because they are dangerous (the amount of harmful radiation has been equated to 2 minutes of exposure that you get while flying at altitude) but because this goes too far. Our *original* government was not founded to do these things but to honor the rights and freedoms of the individual. You lemmings that hand over everything to agencies like the TSA will wonder what happened when you’re sitting in a jail cell with no recourse and no access to a lawyer or family — oh wait that doesn’t happen here. I’ll agree that Bob’s article isn’t the best presentation of this, but the intent is very real.
What about warrantless wiretapping? Right – what’s the problem if you’re not doing something wrong, right? I suppose you don’t mind if I start snooping through your mail because after all, I’m from the government and I’m here to protect you. Funny thing is, the Obama administration has put forth arguments to push forward warrantless wiretapping that actually says the federal government is not bound by the freaking constitution. Oh yay! Change! NOT.
Freaking morons.
Dear Hearts:
I have known good citizens to be ARRESTED and have their money confiscated; all because they had a large sum of CASH. By their local pollice. It takes forever to get it returned. Kumbaya,
OK, so you want some reality and real background on the TSA. How about the fact that Bob Barr voted in favor of both the rejected House version of the Airport Security Federalization Act and the eventually-signed Senate version (the bill that created the TSA). He also voted for the wonderful Patriot Act, and virtually every other Orwellian fascist proposal put in front of his face by the wonderful Bush administration.
Hey Bob, sorry to point out the obvious, but where were your principles while folks like Ron Paul were attempting to get supposed conservatives to vote against big, fascist, totalitarian government??? Yes, we were attacked by supposedly 19 guys with box cutters. What does that have to do with imposing the american equivalent of the Stazi on us?? Why exactly, aside from the obvious reason that republicans are supposed to support anything a republican president proposes without bothering to note their oath to uphold the constitution, did you vote for all this totalitarian stuff??
Hey, don’t get me wrong, I am glad to hear anyone stand up against this kind of unconstitutional behavior, but the time to do that was back in 2001 while everyone was voting on bills they hadn’t bothered to read. Everyone except Ron Paul of course.
“Sure is easy to tel who voted for our bowin pansy in chief.”
Rick, your comment makes no sense. The TSA got started down this path with G.W. Bush and full Republican support. Everybody who voted for G.W. Bush was enthusiastically on board with surrendering our freedoms in the name of security.
How does that translate to the voters who elected our current President? They’re the OPPOSITE of the lockstep, fear-driven, right wing losers.
Like I keep saying… the masses will not notice until they can’t stuff their face in front of their TV every night. Then they will start to pay attention. These agencies operate like businesses. They are out to secure their own futures. The more control they have over their unwilling consumers, the easier it is. The Monopoly against personal freedoms just keeps getting stronger. Why, oh why could you or Ron Paul not have even been considered. For god’s sakes, Paul said he would abolish the IRS and it was hardly mentioned. Imagine the news hoopla that would have resulted if McCain or Obama had even hinted at it? I’m so sick of ‘yes’ men and coporate puppets parading around as ‘leaders’. It is as if guilt has no effect on them any longer.
In a recent USA Today article regarding a new program by TSA to begin additional random searching of passengers at gate entry was nothing more than another attempt by TSA to further harass the flying public. This should not be necessary as passengers are subjected to bag, personal, laptop, etc. x-rays at check in.
After reading down a few paragraphs I got a good chuckle when I read the “motive” for the (additional search) program: (Quote)“…the TSA fears that airport workers, who are not routinely screened, could sneak weapons into the secure area of an airport and give them to passengers.” Was Mr. Roth serious when he said that? I guess I am nuts by suggesting this but why don’t they (TSA) begin a thorough screening of ‘airport workers’? DUH! Good God Almighty! doesn’t this make more sense than to continue harassing passengers at the gate level?
someone else alluded to the fact that they “chat” at the gates. I observe too much “shuckin’ ‘an jivin’” there to be meaningful in searching for weapons, etc.
I flew, last summer from Indianapolis to Denver, slept all night on the floor, and flew out the next morning to Spokane and on to Seattle. No one asked who I was. But when TSA was formed and interviewing and testing for employees I applied, but wasn’t good enough. I am a college educated, seasoned,experienced worker who had already spent 33 years as an inspector, but they wanted the very best, and I wasn’t one of them. If they aren’t that good anymore, maybe I should re-apply.
Dumbya made sure that wages were low for the TSA screeners, and you get what you pay for. Starting pay is in the $12-13/hour range for most cities. Not going to attract the best and the brightest.
Lets get the story straight,Steve Bierfeldt came through the St Louis airport with the intent to cause a problem, he failed to provide any information or cooperate with TSA officers or the airport police, if you research the reason you will find out his motive. Google, (Missouri State police, militia, Ron Paul). He wasn’t just passing through Missouri folks, the Ron Paul people were in Missouri because there was a MIAC report specifically describing supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout. I was there and the only thing the TSA did wrong in my opinion was failing to have Steve Bierfeldt arrested for interfering in a Federal screening process. http://www.infowars.com/secret-state-police-report-ron-paul-bob-barr-chuck-baldwin-libertarians-are-terrorists/
I have been railing against the USAA Patriot Act since the pea-brains in Washington passed it. It is an outrage that in this, a supposedly free country, that we have to be subject to this type of invasion of privacy. All of these liberties that we are losing are a very big deal, but it seems that no one is willing to listen. The American people think these invasions by the TSA and Homeland Security make us “safe”, when, in fact, if anyone wanted to blow up a building or a plane badly enough, they could do it. My heart aches to see this new America where the general populace is so ignorant and stupid they are willing to accept this.
Well, I say strip them buck-nekkid and search them inside out. Anything to keep me and mine safe. I don’t care about this liberty stuff. That’s just a bunch of bunk from the libruls.
These TSA people that look at the pictures from that fancy machine need a pay raise, that’s for sure. It might not be too bad to see alot of people buck nekkid, but if Sister Dusty or this deborahinAthens show up in a picture it must be awful hard on the eyes. Not to mention getting put off your feed for a month.
Anyhow, I’m sorry to see Bob Barr done turned librul on us. We need to do anything we can to catch the Terrists. I’m tired of staying in the trailer and sleeping with my anti-tank weapon and my two machine guns that I keep for self defense and hunting. If you got nothing to hide–and you won’t with this new machine–there’s no reason to worry.
Anyone on the right (including me) who doesnt give Obama respect for this should turn in their credibility cards now. I hope Obama continues it. Yes, I know the president has little to do with the actual operation on the ground, but everyone always yelps about how Obama is an appeaser and will back down. He showed this past weekend that he is willing to let the military do its job.
And you cannot say enough about the SEALs and the captain. Bravery. Just amazing bravery.
Nice to see credit given when it’s due. Hope Obama will deserve and receive credit a year from now as our recovery continues and we emerge from these dark economic days. Well done, Bob Barr.
Can you imagine this for a moment, the Maerska Alabamas “rich cargo” was food aid to starving civilians (in Somalia, Kenya & Uganda). I could see if it was carrying Mercedes-benz automobiiles for sale to oil-rich shieks, but this was an humanitarian cargo! It amazes me the the US hasn’t invaded Somalia~land & whipped some sorely-needed democracy on this country; which to this date still isn’t recognized as a country, by the world community. If Mr Bush was still in office, all one would have to mention is the untapped oil & uranium resources locked away in that sparse country, and I’m sure their (and our) political troubles would end.
With all of the media and liberals attempting to feminize the military and warfare itself, it is a refreshing day when terrorists [oh excuse me, criminals] have their heads blown off.
Easier said than done. Somalia has an unlimited amount of armed pirates that, under the influence of drug, can do some really crazy and nasty stuff.
I applaude as well the US and French interventions, but believe the only way to tackle the problem is but removing Pirate’s logistical capabilities – boats in particular. And yes, that does mean taking actions on land.
No, pirates are criminals. No need to glorify them, they are not attacking the United States, they are mere thieves. Three bullets, three dead, zero collateral damage.
Refreshing to have an adult in charge after these eight long years…
I agree that congrats need to go to both Obama and the skill of the Seal snipers.
First to President Obama for allowing attempted negotiations to continue until it was apparent the pirates were coming dangerously close to one of their own ports. Then taking the correct, decisive action that the pirates could not reach that port and give permission for the Navy to bring an end to the situation.
Second to the Seal snipers who shot from one moving ship to another moving vessel and took out each intended target. Proving once again why they are the BEST at what they do.
If the news comes out that the crew of the “Alabama” was not allowed to have weapons (due to some Federal Goverment or UN law), But still, goes into known pirate waters, it isn’t right for my tax dollars to finance their rescue. Just saying.
A real Libertarian.
Jim, the argument is still valid. You can be stopped for carrying a lot of money. THIS IS STUPID. What threat is there to have cash? NONE. If I had more time, I could go through the series of stupid rules that punish the innocent, such as curfews, no liquor laws, gambling laws, etc.
First, go in with armed planes and ships, and destroy all the boats and ships of Somalia (yes, even the small fishing boats) now floating in their ports and harbors.
Then simply mine the ports and harbors of Somalia, so they can’t bring in any more pirated ships to plunder while being ransomed. They will have to leave the captured ships out in the open sea, with a bored crew, and prey to attacks by military and naval forces. Or try to bring the booty into port where a mine might go off underneath the hull and sink the ship.
If they can’t get out to sea in armed boats, then they can’t pirate peaceful civilian ships filled with humanitarian aid for their own country. Deny them a base of operations, and the operations will stop.
We can let them build or buy their fishing and trade ships again when they behave themselves and show that their own government will stop the pirates.
They can be pirates and go hungry, or they can be peaceful and live. Only in Somalia would this be a difficult choice.
It is safe to say thanks that we have an adult administration in Washington. Left to all these trigger happy, go-get-em people like Mr Barr, the US should have invaded Somalia just to prove the point…
I think that’s unfair, George. Barr isn’t a neocon; he’s been strongly against the notion of the U.S. deploying troops in every direction to invade and spread an empire.
It’s one of the things that sets him apart from the thoroughly discredited neoconservatives and their failed Iraq adventure.
This was a well managed and executed handling of a crisis for which the President and his administration (including the military) deserve the credit along with the courage of the merchant crew and its captain. That said, there is no easy quick term solution to the problem of piracy in a lawless nation with the longest coastline in Africa. It will take time and more than the mere bombing of villages and small port areas. To the question of why merchant ships are not armed and some sort of U.S. or UN prohibition, first, many merchant ships do allow their crew to carry arms. Others do not but that is due to the decisions of the actual shipping companies with their fears about losses and liability. It is also these companies who have routinely bargained with and pay the ransoms to these thugs.
[...] Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Bob Barr writes in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution I’ll be writing more very shortly regarding the issue of dealing with Somali pirates, but I have [...]
Time to bring back the notion of the armed convoy – have merchant ships gather near the horn of Africa and provide them escorts in the form of destroyers and aircraft.
Unless these criminals have access to submarines, they lose before they start.
“Armed pirates hijacking American-flag vessels and U.S. citizens are not simply “criminals,”:
Yes, they are.
“Rather these are hostile, armed actions against the United States,”
Learn some geography. This was a private ship outside of American waters. The U.S. government should not be treated as a defense force for private business.
“and if we are to maintain credibility and have any hope of preventing further such terorist acts, we must act decisively, quickly, and if necessary, harshly.”
Tell the AJC to give you a new editor – one who will reliably catch mis-spellings.
I am sooooooooooo glad that we stood up for our fellow citizens! Thanks to the Prez,the Nav, and the Seals we killed some of those b*****ds. They have got to learn that some of us won’t be cowed by their ruthless audacity of kidnapping for the sake of ransom so they can buy bigger lethal weapons that they can turn against us. We need to “neutralize” their reason for pirating.
President Obama made the right decision, just as President Bush would have and did. Those of you who continue to talk about having adults in charge are so totally wrong. In a few years when we have lost a large portion of our freedoms and are waiting for the government check you will see.
Can people please stop glorifying the President for doing his job. The Navy SEALS, along with the Captain who was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to save others, are the ones who should be glorified. Like many other things going on in our world for which he gets/takes credit, Obama had NOTHING to do with the final outcome. At best he allowed them to do the job they are qualified to do, and they did it exceptionally well.
If those of you who wildly support President Obama would lay off the extreme accolades, others of us might actually take notice when he does go above and beyond. Remember the boy who cried wolf…it works for praise as well as peril.
If you had any idea of logic you would understand that it would be inconsistent to praise Nave SEALS for doing their job and not praise the President for doing his job. THe President made the right judgements as did the Navy SEALS commander and the SEALS themselves. Great job all round. We can leave it at that.
The Navy SEALS shot three for three off of a moving ship into a moving raft and did not harm the hostage. Obama said, “you have my permission to shoot”. Who went above and beyond? Give credit where credit is due. It is not inconsistent not illogical to praise people for doing something amazing in a difficult situation. If you want to give him credit for the sunrise so be it, but don’t expect it to translate into a re-election.
Many Americans prefer the childish tantrums and antics of the previous administration to the calm rational approach that Obama has fostered. So Ayn is right, he will face a difficult re-election.
The president did his job. I’m glad he did his job but why such excitement over it? Are not people expected to do their job? Were people expecting that he wouldn’t do his job and now releived that he did?
I, for one, will be excited if Obama decides to adibe by the constraints of the constitution in all things. THAT is his real job, to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America. My biggest fear is that he may actually be another Lincoln and will trample the constitution underfoot and fundamentally change our country.
Thanks Mr. President for letting the military do it’s job. Keep it up.
No comments Add your comment
PappyHappy
March 11th, 2009
9:45 am
Sadly, Mr. Barr is correct. The banks are now finding out that by accepting their ‘handouts’, they sold their souls to the devil!! Some are already attempting to give the money back to the feds for they cannot stay in business with Washington tinkering constantly. Can only imagine how the Obama/Pelosi axis would treat charities, and the rules they would impose. It is apparent that they want total control!
It is time for President Obama to take some advice from folks who thought there would be ‘change’ in the right direction, and that HE WOULD follow through on what he promised that he would do! At present, terribly DISAPPOINTED! He may have to learn that DISAPPOINTMENT affects BOTH PARTIES!
Think he should take the following under advisement:
1) Select cabinet members who are not tax cheats! Such is a reflection on your own values.
2) Stop the new Attorney General from calling the nation ‘cowards’ and fueling divisiveness. Scolding after the fact is not convincing.
3) At least in the beginning, ADHERE to the promises made regarding doing away with EARMARKS and PORK BARREL spending; and keeping lobbyists out of key cabinet positions. REMEMBER — YOU HAVE VETO POWERS!! Now that the FY 2009 Appropriations Bill ($410 Billion) has been approved, you can veto it if you do not want to fund over 8,500 earmarks! (NO MORE EXCUSES!)
4) Cease talking down business, and attempting to make successful enterprises the enemy! You will have to rely on them to pay the bills for your initiatives.
5) Refrain from speaking of the ’stock market’ in a cavalier way since there are millions of Americans who had depended upon the ‘market’ for their retirement through planning their own futures (401k and IRAs). At age 70, one’s options are limited, BUT WE STILL VOTE!
6) Do not use tax payer money to bail out individuals who were not disciplined enough to think through personal financial obligations before committing to same. THIS IS REWARDING RISKY BEHAVIOR — AT OUR EXPENSE! (Many of us learned the hard way as well, and came out the better for it!)
7) Stop blaming the current situation on your predecessor when your own party has had both chambers of Congress for over two years — WHICH YOU WERE A MEMBER — and, Barney Franks and Chris Dodd were in charge of the Congressional Banking Committees. Additionally, you had friends in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae ( Mr. Raines and Mr. Johnson). This just causes folks who vote for you to question their own judgment as to whether or not they chose a guy NOT UP TO THE TASK!
credibility .. with true bipartisanship. Beating up on Eric Cantor — or the ‘boogey person’ of the day is not a recommended strategy. Suggest the process begin!
9) Refrain from using the Whitehouse to attempt to silence critics– Jim Cramer, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli and now Eric Cantor. It cheapens the office, and causes one to seriously question your priorities when we are in a serious economic crisis. Refer to item #8. Remember, this is not Chicago politics!
10) Deal more with substance rather than style, including weaning yourself from the teleprompter.
11) If in charge, TAKE CHARGE — that includes engaging the Speaker of the House. SHE IS NOT THE CO-PRESIDENT!
12) Daily pronouncements/speeches (stem cell research and education as examples) without detail plans; impacts on citizens; specific objectives and outcomes — NOT GENERALITIES; and the costs; are really a waste of time, and you will find that your bully pulpit will rapidly become an ordinary soap box — made of cardboard. Please do the homework before calling a crowd and saying ‘nothing’.
13) Bring on a chief of protocol who can keep the Whitehouse and State Department straight, where there will be fewer embarrassments — such as we suffered (and still suffering) the week of March 2d. That was pretty sophomoric.
14) LISTEN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE — NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO THINK THEY ARE SAYING, BUT, WHAT THEY ARE SAYING!! MAKE US WANT TO SUPPORT YOUR EFFORTS, NOT — REGRET OUR VOTE OF NOVEMBER 4!!
Credibility of a leader is EARNED — IT IS NOT BESTOWED.
Report this comment
Joey Kellett
March 11th, 2009
10:07 am
Amen Mr. Barr!! I teach at a Private Christian School… my income comes from paying parents and local donations. People justify giving to non-profits because they get some of it back. With the economy hurting already you had less of a reason to give. Mr. Barr continue to keelhaul his version of change. These next four years are going to drag buy. Mr. Barr what are your plans for the Governers Race, any intrest?
Report this comment
ByteMe
March 11th, 2009
10:27 am
Mr. Barr misrepresents what is being proposed and then goes off on a tangent about corporate giving to cover up his mistake.
Here’s what the budget proposal says:
The Administration’s Budget includes a proposal to limit the tax rate at which high-income taxpayers can take itemized deductions to 28 percent— and the initial reserve fund would be funded in part through this provision. This provision would raise $318 billion over 10
years.
The proposal does not cap what can be given; it only proposes capping the tax rate of the deduction. In other words, if you are currently in the 33% tax bracket, the deduction is worth 5% less than it would be now.
You think rich people are that hard-hearted that they would cut back giving just because they won’t be able to deduct 100% of it?? You’re serious, right?
And since when do so-called liberatarians think the tax code should be used to promote social goals?
Report this comment
null
March 11th, 2009
10:32 am
Mr. Barr, you had my vote. I didn’t trust those other 2 idiots. Please don’t give up!! After 8 years of Bush and (God forbid!!) 8 years of Obama, I hope the ignorant American voters will be ready for REAL change. The only change we got this go-round was in skin color. Same idiotic ideas…..same idiotic pandering. It’s time to clean house and send the RNC and DNC where they belong….CHINA!!
Report this comment
Bob
March 11th, 2009
10:52 am
I love Pappy Happy’s response.
Report this comment
SaveOurRepublic
March 11th, 2009
10:59 am
Some good points by Mr.Barr indeed. The tax system is largely un-Constitutional, as the 16th Amendment (income tax) wasn’t properly ratified. While taxpayer (fiat) dollars are “stolen” to prop up the banks (& their fractional reserve banking policies), the non-profits (& middle class) will continue to suffer. The best answer is abolishment of the (private) Fed, IRS & income tax. However, the Globalist pawns on “Crapitol sHill” are totally beholden to the Central Banking Cartel, so these (long needed) actions will sadly never happen. It’s pathetic that (patriot) Congressman Ron Paul couldn’t find any (non co-opt’d) co-sponsors for his Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act (H.R. 833). This speaks volumes for the cowardice of the puppets in DC!
Report this comment
Atlanta Native
March 11th, 2009
11:00 am
I remember when the United Way gave free soccer uniforms to Dunwoody kids years ago and reading about the small percentage of donations that actually benefit anyone. If this has not changed significantly, I feel no pain for the United Way.
Report this comment
T-Pain
March 11th, 2009
11:04 am
Keep it up Bobby, we need you at the liberal AJC!
Report this comment
LawDawg
March 11th, 2009
11:36 am
I could not have stated it any better PappyHappy!
Report this comment
clyde
March 11th, 2009
11:39 am
Mr. Barr should run for President.I’ll bet he could beat Obama.
Report this comment
David S
March 11th, 2009
11:53 am
Hey Bob, As long as you are railing against the horrible proposals of this administration, maybe you could take some time to appologize for your votes while in Washington that aided in the decline of liberty and the economy of this country. Unread Patriot Act ring a bell?
Report this comment
BS Aplenty
March 11th, 2009
11:57 am
“Buyers remorse”, Pappy Happy, is not available as a remedy for your poor selection(s) in the Presidential contest. There’s no three day right of recission available here to correct a choice apparently conceived in Obama’s hype and sermonizing. Sadly, a large number of “independent” voters occasionally delude themselves into thinking that Democratic sloganeering like “Change You Can Believe In” is anything other than “Chains for Your Deceivin’”.
So spare me the theatrics and next time just make the smart vote (Romney).
Report this comment
SaveOurRepublic
March 11th, 2009
12:27 pm
David S @ 11:53 – Good allusion to Barr’s past Neocon leanings (support of the so-called “Patriot” Act). In his defense, he’s recently been working with the ACLU (whom I disagree with on 90% of issues..sans privacy rights protection) to address/remedy the growing Orwellian police state.
http://www.infowars.com
Report this comment
RGB
March 11th, 2009
12:48 pm
“Byte Me” doesn’t understand the concept of things happening “at the margin” in economics. Yes, a 5% decrease in one’s being able to make a deduction will affect their behavior.
As noted economist Jude Wanniski explained: “The concept of marginality is crucial to an understanding of economic behavior. Everyone knows about ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back.’ It is always that ‘last straw’ that causes a change in the situation, the marginal straw, even though it weighs exactly the same as each of the other 10,000. But it is one thing to see that change occurs on the margin and quite another to understand that each straw is equally to blame for the breaking of the camel’s back. Very few people think on the margin, but everyone acts on the margin, which is why it is so hard to see that the electorate, as a whole, understands economics.”
I encourage you to read Wanniski’s writings on the subject of people acting “at the margin”. Here’s the link:
http://polyconomics.com/ssu/ssu-980123.htm
He has a ton of useful writings that explain economic concepts in terms many people can understand.
But, if your only purpose is to condemn, complain, and ridicule, you’ll blow it off and remain in dark ignorance.
Read it.
Report this comment
Brill
March 11th, 2009
12:49 pm
So Pelosi was threatening to shut down the govt. if Obama didn’t sign the Omnibus bill “as-is” ? I think he could have gone a long way to winning people over (people like me) if he had vetoed it and stood up to her. He would have looked like the good guy standing up for his principles. But now he looks weak(er).
Report this comment
SaveOurRepublic
March 11th, 2009
1:21 pm
Good allusion to Barr’s past Neocon leanings (support of the so-called “Patriot” Act). In his defense, he’s recently been working with the ACLU (whom I disagree with on 90% of issues..sans privacy) to address/remedy the growing Orwellian police state.
Report this comment
Ricardo
March 11th, 2009
1:58 pm
Did Mr Barr consider that charitable contributions may be down because of the bad economy, and American families just not having the money to contribute, rather than 50 days of Obama being in office? And, to continue the line, does Mr. Barr know whose policies over the last 8 years caused the bad economy?
Report this comment
ByteMe
March 11th, 2009
2:56 pm
RGB: Of course I understand what you’re saying. It’s how people finally got out of their SUVs when gas hit $4/gal.
However, just because you postulate a particular economic theory doesn’t make it automatically true in all circumstances. See “supply-side economics” (worked great when the top tax rate went from 70% to 39%, but did not work when it got lowered from 39% to 33%).
On the other hand, poll after poll about people and their giving indicates that they do it not because of the tax deduction, but because it makes them feel better. A minor adjustment to the tax code isn’t going to suddenly change that feeling.
Think of it this way: you know how precious home ownership is here, right? And that there’s an argument that has been stated that if you take away the mortgage deduction that home ownership levels would drop and kill the real estate industry and builders? Still with me? Did you know Canada does not have a mortgage interest deduction for their tax code AND their home ownership levels are the same as ours?
Not every social good is driven by a favorable line in the tax code, just the same as not every possible evil in the universe will come if we adjust the tax code to raise more revenue.
Report this comment
RGB
March 11th, 2009
3:54 pm
Byte Me – You write that “not every social good is driven by a favorable line in the tax code…” While true, it ignores the basic point that when you eliminate or reduce the deductability of charitable contributions for people, those individuals by definition have *less money to be able to give*. You cannot give at the same level when you have to hold back additional money to pay higher taxes because the government reduced the deductability of a contribution. Remember too that statists relish making more people dependent on government by reducing the ability of charities to care for their constituents. If you are a statist, then you see nothing wrong with that approach.
I re-read my comments and found nowhere that I wrote that “a particular economic theory applies in all circumstances.” Please don’t put words in my mouth as that is not sanitary.
Regarding your Canada example, you cannot compare one country’s rate of home ownership (or any other thing) to another’s–then explain it by a single variable unless other variables are held constant. Economists use the term ceteris paribus–other things being equal. The deductability of home mortgages may be one variable but there are many others. Home size, home value, other tax rates, and the cost of money are but a few examples. But would you suggest that the U.S. end mortgage deductions–and that in doing so it would have no effect on the economy? Or on mortgage delinquencies? Or personal bankruptcies or foreclosures? Should we do this in our current economic times?
The problem is that politicians and bureaucrats encroach on the private sector. One says we should scale back (on the road to eliminating) charitable deductions. Another person says eliminate mortgage interest deductions. Another wants to save the environment by having a “tax and trade” (or cap and trade) scheme that raises utility rates by “only” 40%. Still another politician wants to reinstate taxes on groceries while another raises taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and even speeders. Still another wants to raise taxes on capital gains, income, and dividends. Collectively, these ideas take a huge toll on people while separately they may look (to some, at least) harmless. I believe it was Herman Talmadge who famously said “don’t tax you, don’t tax me. Tax that man behind the tree.”
Raising the hurdle rate on either businesses or individuals is dumb in any economic climate but is especially shortsighted at present. Google “tax on yachts backfired” and you’ll be reminded of when politicians were going to raise revenue for the Treasury by taxing yachts purchased by “the rich.” The result was that the yacht industry suffered substantially, many workers lost their jobs, and the Treasury’s take of revenue declined because fewer boats were sold and there were fewer workers around to pay taxes. Plus, these displaced workers consumed social services at a higher rate. And this happened under G.H.W. Bush.
I understand basic economics and I believe Mr. Obama and the Democrats do too. The difference is they love power more than they love liberty and free enterprise while I do not.
Let’s not incrementalize our way to becoming a poorer people.
Report this comment
Brill
March 11th, 2009
4:38 pm
Yea, what RGB said.
Report this comment
ByteMe
March 11th, 2009
5:09 pm
RGB: I don’t have time to debate your entire thesis, but I think these two sentences were key and worthy of a counter-thought:
While true, it ignores the basic point that when you eliminate or reduce the deductability of charitable contributions for people, those individuals by definition have *less money to be able to give*. You cannot give at the same level when you have to hold back additional money to pay higher taxes because the government reduced the deductability of a contribution.
This really doesn’t make as much sense as you’d like it to, because it would only apply to couples making more than $250K taxable income and would only adjust the rate by deduction rate by 5% for those couples. If it was 100% or for people under $250K, your statement makes perfect sense. I can only tell you based on my experiences and the experiences of those around me who are at the same financial level (yes, we do talk about these things) that that 5% doesn’t mean anything once you get to that level of income. That’s not what keeps us giving or not. It’s the unpredictable nature of our own income streams that affects us, not the level of deductibility of our charitable contributions.
Off to pick up kids. Have a great day!
Report this comment
RGB
March 11th, 2009
5:58 pm
BM,
Suffice it to say that you don’t really appreciate the fact that peoples’ action DO occur at the margin.
If you think the deduction limit on charitable contributions will stop at folks making >$250k/yr., you aren’t a student of history. Government doesn’t do a little of anything.
By increasing taxes on these contributions, the government directly says “we want people to make fewer charitable contributions.” Remember the adage about if you want less of something, tax it.
In addition, you don’t appreciate that inflation will force more and more people into that $250k bracket over time. Then what will your response be?
One final question: If people are absolutely not deterred by a 5% difference, what is the precise level at which they are deterred from giving? Is it 80%? Or would 50% do it? Or is it just 20%? Is it the same for everyone (as you suggest it is)? The answer is “no”. It occurs at the margin.
Be safe in picking up your kids. I hope your vehicle meets the upcoming CAFE standards and that you don’t have a carbon footprint on which you will soon be taxed.
Report this comment
ByteMe
March 11th, 2009
9:36 pm
RGB: you’re going for the slippery slope argument, which is demonstrably wrong, since the slope doesn’t always lead in the direction of the worst case scenario.
By taxing food and clothing, you’re also saying the government doesn’t want us to buy that, but we do, so there you go. It’s not always a social agenda with the government, even if it sometimes seems like it is.
What inflation? You see any inflation out there in the past 6 months? Seriously, though: the ranges change regularly, but $250K is still not anywhere close to the current median income for households in the USA, so I’m not really worried about that. AMT will get them first anyway.
As for your final question: yes, that’s an interesting game to play, but just as people were predicted to change their driving habits at $2.50/gal, it turned out that it took until it reached $4/gal before anyone got out of their cars. Sometimes we’re all like the joke about boiling frogs (you put them in cold water and turn on the heat and they don’t notice until it gets really hot). Anyway, 5% isn’t going to be the number that will affect behavior, and I’m guessing that those who want to give will give even if it wasn’t deductible. Some people are just like that.
Relax and enjoy life. Stop worrying so much about taxes. People got rich when the top tax rate was 70%. They just didn’t spend like mad mall zombies then.
Report this comment
E. Lee
March 12th, 2009
1:41 pm
To “Atlanta Native”: Your statement about United Way Atlanta’s ’small percentage of donations that actually benefit anyone’ is incorrect. According to financial reports by United Way of Metroplitan Atlanta — and the independent rating organization, CharityNavigator.org (check it out for yourself)the amount of money that goes to direclty support local programs through United Way is better than 90% — that’s an overhead right at 10%.
Report this comment
Jeff
March 13th, 2009
8:54 am
Finally, common sense and sound judgement prevail!! In these times of financial uncertainty and the city council’s systemic fiscal irresponsibility, it’s high time they took a step in the right direction.
Report this comment
AceOheartz
March 13th, 2009
11:34 am
Wow, an 8 million dollar price tag for now what may be 80 million and more in city costs and woes. That campaign money attracted and enticed thousands to relocate to this city where the pay and wage scale are not commensurate with the high cost of living. Poor school system, at large. If you work as day laborer in Atlanta you better work two and a half jobs or have six roommates. Aging infrastructure and highways that continually get quick fixes, but even band aids dont last. Ever Increasing crime rate. Public transportation solutions for the last five years have not dented the problem in highway and main streets plugging. Mayor Franklin – Atlanta does not need a cute trolley car system. Invest the money in BETTERING public transportation and extending the train lines, hours and security. The decent and somewhat classy venues for entertainment and eateries close by midnight. Thank goodness tickets to Vegas are cheap and I dont even gamble.
Finally real estate used to be a real bonus in Atlanta but not any more. Even buying foreclosed properties wont improve the neighborhood market value folks. My purchase of a property four years ago in a highly sought after area didnt yield me the projected $50 value-up but has nose dived some $30,000 in property value.
Report this comment
AceOheartz
March 13th, 2009
11:38 am
Oh one more thing….
signed
beanie weinies for breakfast, lunch and dinner
Report this comment
CommunistAJC
March 13th, 2009
11:45 am
Bob, at least you don’t live in Chicago where I do. This city and state SUCKS!
Illinois Income Tax May Jump 50 Percent
Report: Gov. Pat Quinn Wants Tax Hike To Fight Deficit
Income taxes in Illinois could soon be going up by as much as 50 percent to combat deficits in a difficult state budget.
As CBS 2’s Joanie Lum reports, Gov. Pat Quinn is reportedly considering raising taxes to deal with a growing budget deficit.
Quinn has been hinting about the problems in the state budget this year for some time. He gives his first address on the subject next Wednesday, and there is word that income taxes will go up as 50 percent.
The Chicago Tribune reports that Quinn wants to raise the state income tax to 4.5 percent from 3 percent.
http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/income.tax.hike.2.958201.html
Report this comment
Jason
March 13th, 2009
12:43 pm
I never understood the rationale behind branding a city like a sports team. What a huge waste of money.
Report this comment
Sonya Moste, current staff for Brand Atlanta
March 13th, 2009
1:13 pm
Bob, clearly the 3 year old tagline is not so unforgettable. It has received over 2 million media impressions in just the past 5 days alone. Why does the media continue to dredge up old news? Not every tactic of a 5 year branding strategy is going to be a home run. People have to focus on the results of the entire effort and the return on investment. Brand Atlanta did have some measurable results that resulted in increased, incremental visitor spending.
Brand Atlanta saw the needle start to move in measures commonly used by the hospitality industry. Atlanta as a city saw an increase in its share in the top 25 U.S. travel markets, from 5.8 percent in 2004 to 6.0 percent by 2006, during the period that coincided with a massive citywide resident ambassador effort and ad campaign. The goal was 6.8 percent by 2011. This is when the lion’s share of marketing dollars were spent on recruiting residents to become personal ambassadors for the city and influence their friends and relatives to visit.
The result, for which Brand Atlanta can and should take some credit, Atlanta saw significant growth of 10.7 percent in overnight tourists and leisure visitors in 2006, representing an increase of 1.4 million tourists who spent more than $100 per day, on average, at area restaurants, museums, shops, and hotels. Here’s where the public and private funding contributors, got their return on investment.
Lastly, the city rose from 18th place to 12th place in a ranking of top meeting destinations, according to a national annual survey of meeting planners.
The current Brand Atlanta campaign, Treasures Fit for Kings, is doing extremely well. Tickets sales have surpassed projections. Here’s the website http://www.atlanta.net/camp/treasures08/reg.asp.
Report this comment
uga_b
March 13th, 2009
1:34 pm
A…T…L… A…T…L…
Report this comment
Dino
March 13th, 2009
2:27 pm
Good riddance to that silly slogan and terrible song. Who designed that program, a 5th grade class?
Report this comment
Jungleland
March 13th, 2009
3:40 pm
can we go back to Hot’Lanta (at no cost to taxpayers of course)
Report this comment
Sonya Moste, current staff for Brand Atlanta
March 13th, 2009
4:00 pm
I personally love Hot’lanta.
Report this comment
Gaspar
March 13th, 2009
5:10 pm
Amazing that the Brand Atlanta folks want to take credit for the surge in Atlanta tourism in 2006. There was a big fish tank that opened for business in downtown Atlanta in November 2005. More than 3 million people visited it the first year. All thanks to Brand Atlanta, right?
Report this comment
Joey
March 13th, 2009
6:42 pm
It just slapped me in the face. The AJC has chosen Bob Barr to be their “Conservative” spokesman. I am bitterly disapointed.
I will be writing the “defenders of Balance” to formally register my objection. Please join me.
Report this comment
Bud Wiser
March 13th, 2009
7:35 pm
Maybe Brand Atlanta can move to Los Angeles, where they may soon be desperately seeking a new image:
1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people)are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal , whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L. A. Are Spanish speaking.
10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.
(There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County . )
All 10 of the above are from the Los Angeles Times
Report this comment
Tom
March 14th, 2009
12:06 am
I say let’s go back to “Terminus’. With some grammatical license, it could describe the aggregate of the alpha waves being generated in City Hall.
Welcome back, Congressman.
Report this comment
Circles Robinson
March 16th, 2009
7:36 am
Good points Mr. Barr, its time we get beyond that Miami special interest group that has molded US foreign policy in regards to Cuba. Obama owes them little or nothing and this is a win-win situation for everyone who believes in peaceful, respectfull international relations. It’s about time the US image of the big bully on the block be reversed. There are enough problems at home these days than to be spreading hate elsewhere. Let’s hope Obama is ready to go down in history as the president who finally instituted a friendly US-Cuba policy. It’s also time that all US citizens be allowed to travel to Cuba and see it for themselves. People to people exchange is healthy with any country. For more on Cuba today check out: http://www.havanatimes.org
Report this comment
Bob J
March 16th, 2009
8:51 am
Amen
Report this comment
Peadawg
March 16th, 2009
8:58 am
As long as Cuba is Communist, hell no we shouldn’t talk with them. That’s the no brainer Mr. Barr
Report this comment
exNFLplayer
March 16th, 2009
9:00 am
Thank you Bob. Normalizing relations with Cuba is long overdue.
Report this comment
lovelyliz
March 16th, 2009
9:09 am
Whether our government’s Cuba policy gets revisited is going to be largely impacted by how the ex-pat Cuban community reacts and just how badly some folks in Washington DC wet their pants over it.
Report this comment
Your morning jolt | Political Insider
March 16th, 2009
9:13 am
[...] Bob Barr says its time to open relations with Cuba. [...]
Report this comment
Chris
March 16th, 2009
9:15 am
I agree 100%! What message are we sending when we ostracize Cuba but give China favored nation status? Makes no sense in today’s world. In 1961, I understand the purpose, but in 2009 where is the logic?
Report this comment
Rick Caffery
March 16th, 2009
9:19 am
Right on, Bob! We’re the only country in the world where it’s illegal to buy Cuban stogies. Ridiculous. We should all be able to enjoy Monty #2’s, Cohiba Siglo VI’s and Esplendidos and all the other fine Cubano brands LEGALLY.
Report this comment
MacArthur O. Means
March 16th, 2009
9:24 am
The embargo is a lose-lose proposition. End it.
Report this comment
MattyB
March 16th, 2009
9:47 am
Mr. Barr, correct again. The dialog needs to start now and I’d go one step further. Put it on the fast track. If we do not establish better relations with and a presence in Cuba, i.e. beat Russia, China, and Venezuela to the punch, we may very well end up regretting it Besides, those cigars and rum are calling my name as well.
Report this comment
Eleanor Rigby
March 16th, 2009
9:51 am
Isn’t it ironic? We can’t buy a cigar from Cuba but there’s nothing we won’t buy from China. I guess some forms of Communism are better than others.
Report this comment
Jorge Gonzalez
March 16th, 2009
9:52 am
I agree with you 100%. Our current Cuba policy is a total failure. it does not hurt the Cuban regime, it hurts the Cuban people. The embargo has been condemned by 185 nations.
It is time for dialogue, reconciliation and the reestablishment of normal diplomatic and trade relations.
Report this comment
brookly
March 16th, 2009
10:01 am
for once, mr barr. i completely agree with you. this would be a good move for both countries. what is the point now of continuing with an embargo? thanks for beginning the discussion.
Report this comment
Road Scholar
March 16th, 2009
10:12 am
Bob, are you sick? For a Republican to state that the US should begin having relations with Cuba by openning trade is….is…is…about time! While we have had disagreements with Cuba in the past, it is about time to take an active roll in correcting this past indiscretion. We may even have a positive affect on the selection of Castro’s heir, or even a Democracy. At minimum we could actually talk to them and possibly avoid a Venezalan type of government relationship.
Report this comment
justine
March 16th, 2009
10:17 am
The fact is we have relationships with countries we do not agree with and have a far worse record on human rights. Saudi Arabia is one. If we had a relationship with cuba it would solve a lot of problems and open up opportunities we have never thought of. Does anyone realize Cuba trains a significant percentage of the third world’s doctors and other medical staff. In fact many doctors in the US were actually trained in Cuba.
Report this comment
justine
March 16th, 2009
10:18 am
For all of those who speak of Cuba being communist. Our biggest trade partner is China and they were still communist the last time I checked.
Report this comment
David S
March 16th, 2009
10:23 am
What all the Kennedy lovers fail to mention is that he ordered members of his staff to buy up all the Cuban cigars in DC the night before he initiated the embargo. What a slime.
Yes Mr. Barr, its high time to trade, etc. with the nation of Cuba. The embargo is only hurting the people and empowering the Castro family. That is the way it always goes with embargos, but politicians fail to realize that.
For instance, while you were voting every time to continue the embargo against Iraq that cost 1.5 million innocent lives, how much thought did you give to the possibility that it would embolden Osama bin Laden and give him tons of ammunition in his recruiting efforts to wage war against the US, including 9-11? Just wiping your hands of that responsibility are you Mr. Barr?
Normalized relations will never happen so long as our elected officials allow the opinions of a relatively small group of zealots in south florida to influence our foreign policy. Of course the same could be said about the influence of the pro-Israel lobby that controls our mideast foreign policy.
Neither has the best interests of freedom or the american people at heart, but since when have these ever been on the agenda of the US government.
Report this comment
Lee
March 16th, 2009
11:04 am
I think its a good idea to open normal relations with Cuba. After all, sending thousands of American news reporters there, snooping all around, will do us both a lot of good. After all, after a visit to a Cuban political prisoner cell, Gitmo would look pretty good.
Shady guys avoid the light.
Report this comment
AllThings Considered
March 16th, 2009
11:08 am
Now is the time to undo what was done to the people of the US and Cuba 50 years ago. Enough already.
Report this comment
Kim Huffman
March 16th, 2009
11:28 am
Communism and repressive governments have nothing to do with it…we do business with communist China ( btw, they own us via our debt ), and repressive sultanate Arab governments in Saudi Arabia and dictatorships in Venezuela..it has to do with money…do they have something we want? oil, cheap goods, or nothing we want rather than proximity. Thats why its taken us so long to attempt to normalize relations..
Report this comment
Richard Swinger
March 16th, 2009
11:31 am
PeaDawg. You should change your name to “Pea Brain”.
If you could abandon your rabid ways, wipe the foam from your mouth and come into the real world you might come to realize that our biggest TRADE partner and CREDITOR is….CHINA!! Did you know they were as “Communist” as communist can be??? Or are you in fact as stupid as we all know you to be??? Care to elaborate on the logic behind your statement again??
Thanks.
Report this comment
Mitzymy
March 16th, 2009
12:07 pm
This is one of the best ideas our President has had. I know he mentioned it earlier, but now is the time to talk to Cuba. The pictures that I have seen of Cuba, says that they were left in the 1960’s in everything. Some Cubans who were successful in fleeing, have not been able to see their family members, and most have died. I would like for them to be able to travel to Cuba with ease and we do other countries. As soon as Cuba opens free travel, there would be millions of US dollars poured into their economy as a tourist attraction. This is a great idea, and I hope it garners maximum support from congress.
Report this comment
Atlanta Native
March 16th, 2009
12:15 pm
The 50 year embargo is little more than a bureaucratic wall. How cans depriving Cuba of the experience of our Demoratized form of Capitalism ever hope to tempt it with the prospects of liberty? We’ve only endeavored to ensure that what they don’t know, they can’t know. What truths can ever be self-evident that aren’t shared by example? In the grand scheme of things, our isolationist policies toward Cuba have helped nobody on either shore and make the great and powerful United States seem a bit less great and a lot less powerful.
Report this comment
Suffering Cats
March 16th, 2009
12:16 pm
Only if they agree to pay for the Maine.
Report this comment
Dave
March 16th, 2009
12:36 pm
Right On, Richard Swinger . . . sheesh, Peadog give it a rest.
Report this comment
Jose Pulido
March 16th, 2009
12:39 pm
I cannot believe how ignorant people are… How can you have relationships with a government that treats its people like animals? We simply cannot have relations with a country that would not allow their people to enjoy the same things as the tourist that visit Cuba. In America you can say hate Bush or Obama and you will not go to jail… Try that there and see what happens! We need regime change or have talks for change, but no relations without regime change!
Report this comment
Mr. Cigar
March 16th, 2009
1:03 pm
The Cuban government’s track record on human rights is well documented but, as Mr. Barr states, after almost 50 years our embargo has done little except make life more difficult for the Cuban people. It is time for a change and the U.S. could certainly benefit from the positive publicity generated as a result of normalizing relations with Cuba.
Report this comment
Californication
March 16th, 2009
1:11 pm
We deal with China, they are worse than Cuba; we also deal with Russia, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Viet Nam and a whole host of bad guys. Cuba is a small fish in an ocean of bad guys…..
Report this comment
David S
March 16th, 2009
1:59 pm
Suffering cats – much like the supposed “surprise attack” that Pearl Harbor wasn’t, and the “innocent” Lusitania that was carrying weapons to Britain in violation of our neutrality agreement, the Tonkin Gulf “incident”, the “weapons of mass destruction”, and every other lie our government has used to lie us into war, most historians now acknowledge that the explosion of the Maine was likely an accident that was exploited by our government to get us into war and once again increase its power and funnel money to the military industrial complex.
Please do remember the Maine and remember that governments always lie.
Report this comment
David S
March 16th, 2009
2:02 pm
Aside from bankrupting itself on socialism, one of the other key factors in the demise of the soviet union was the extensive cultural exchange that went on between american tourists and the soviet peoples. A great economist once said “when goods cannot travel accross borders, bombs will.” High time for peace, commerce, and good will again with Cuba. Likely it will be the straw that breaks the Castro family hold on the population.
Report this comment
Dave Perry
March 16th, 2009
2:34 pm
Bob’s not a Republican, he’s a Libertarian, and like most Libertarians he is right again. Stupid policies are crippling this country, like the so-called Drug War. Talk about a waste of money and resources. Let the scumbag drug users buy their crap for cheap and let the Darwin Theory go to work. In the long run, it would save this country a lot of grief. And if they put in some kind of ingredient that everyone who uses drugs sterile, it really would improve things.
Report this comment
An opportunity missed
March 16th, 2009
3:01 pm
I agree with you Mr. Barr. It is time for a change, to not do so is another opportunity missed.
Report this comment
An opportunity missed
March 16th, 2009
3:04 pm
You are correct David S in that governments are always truthful….just ask the American Indian.
Report this comment
An opportunity missed
March 16th, 2009
3:04 pm
I meant aren’t always truthful…
Report this comment
Eleanor Rigby
March 16th, 2009
3:42 pm
Dave Perry, you are a trip. Don’t forget to tax the hell out of the drugs. We smokers can’t pay off the national debt by ourselves.
Report this comment
radiowxman
March 16th, 2009
3:47 pm
Amen. While I still love my Nicaraugan cigars, I would also love to be able to sample Cubans without fear of reprisal.
I have many friends who are Cuban expats, and I have zero love for the Castro regime. However, I’m no big fan of Hugo Chavez either, and last time I checked, that big Citgo sign is still behind the Green Monster at Fenway Park.
Report this comment
Algonquin J. Calhoun
March 16th, 2009
3:48 pm
I rarely agree with Bob but I agree wholeheartedly here. It’s time to end this ridiculous embargo and move forward. Freezing the Cubans out has not worked in fifty years. Let’s give something else a try!
Report this comment
radiowxman
March 16th, 2009
3:51 pm
Really? The Brand Atlanta people really want to take credit for the surge in tourism? Let’s take a regional poll and see how many of their slogans are working in the southeast.
I’m sure they can take some of the credit, but it seems a little false.
Maybe the geniuses behind “Fanplex” should have taken credit for increased attendance at Braves games.
Report this comment
williebkind
March 16th, 2009
4:17 pm
Bob! You just want to pollute them with capitalism! It is a socialist state…ahhh… but we have a socialist President; hey it might work, we all can be socialists together.
Report this comment
williebkind
March 16th, 2009
4:17 pm
Oh I forgot…OBAMA LIE! OBAMA LIED!
Report this comment
luangtom
March 16th, 2009
4:30 pm
Bring on those Cuban stogies!!!!!! It is about time to open relations with a non-threatening country. China is a threat to all of the world and yet we have relations with them because it is prudent to do so. Why not end the cow-towing to ex-pat Cubans and get things normalized now? We also have “relations” with Russia and other former-East-bloc countries now. So, why not Cuba?
Report this comment
lovelyliz
March 16th, 2009
4:42 pm
It’s hypocritical to ban relations with Cuba because of their communist government when China owns our T-bills
Report this comment
Robert
March 16th, 2009
5:34 pm
We do need to open normal relations with Cuba. I for one believe if we open relations with Cuba you will see that most of the south Florida Cubans will rejoice. They will now be able to visit their relatives and their homeland. I also believe that when they visit they will carry with them the feeling of freedom and it will without notice change Cuba with every visit.
Sad but the world has many peadawgs.
Report this comment
Babe Ruth
March 16th, 2009
6:17 pm
and I’d like to be able buy Cuban rum… on Sundays. The thought of open trade with Cuba is appealing, but I find open trade within the State of Georgia to be far more appealing. Sonny is not a lame duck, he’s just plain lame.
Report this comment
Cornjolio
March 16th, 2009
7:35 pm
If the USA can trade with Red China and Vietnam, why not Cuba ?
Report this comment
Nutball Gazette
March 16th, 2009
7:46 pm
We should never deal with Commie Countries, We only should deal with free countries who has a history of treating all their people with dignity like China!!
Of course we should open up relations with Cuba.
Report this comment
ConservativeAnchor
March 16th, 2009
7:49 pm
Pay no attention to this wonk. I was at the meeting of homeowners that spewed fury at him when he supported the Northern Arc. He’s just another washed up politician still spouting his stupid crap.
Report this comment
Just Nasty & Mean
March 16th, 2009
8:55 pm
My suggestion is we send in Steve Wynn from Vegas and Bill Marriott–of the hotel chain–and use US taxpayer money to turn the whole country into a giant playground for the rich, and turn all the local peasants into chambermaids and janitors.
Whatever industry Cuba has left, (sugar?, tequila? ) we could nationalize and use US taxpayer money to compete with American corporations. We could send money from the last Farm Pork Bill and allow a small contingent of farmers to continue to grow weed–because I heard it was —”killer”.
THEN, we could build a massive airbase at US taxpayer expense, so Cuba could land and support the Russian long-range bombers they said they wanted–along with Venezuela strongman Chavez.
Speaking of Chavez, we don’t want to make him mad, so we could prohibit drilling for oil in the massive oil field Fidel says he has found, and drive up the price of energy on the US consumers. Of course, the Chinese will be able to drill all the oil they want or need.
We could build a 90 mile bridge, at US taxpayer expense, to connect Key West with Cuba, and any and all Cuban refugees could pour into the US and be immediately eligible for US healthcare, education, welfare, medicare, Social Security, a share of everybody’s 401K, voting rights, and US citizenship with no-questions-asked.
We could carve a full length image of Fidel on Mt. Rushmore shaking hands with Obama and Michele, and erase those disgusting images of George Washington,Thomas Jefferson, and Theodore Roosevelt, If course, we would leave Lincoln– but change his face to be smiling approvingly at Obama
And FINALLY!! At US taxpayer expense, we could outfit Fidel and his brother with their own White House, their own Camp David, fund their own army of lobbyists to petition US legislators for more money for God-knows-what, and a Cuban AirForce One 747 and a fleet of Marine One choppers—-all expenses paid.
AND–we could call all this debt to our children and children’s children—a STIMULUS package, and proclaim Obama the GREAT EMANCIPATOR of Latin America–further positioning him for Sainthood (as if he needed it).
Man, Bob! This is a GREAT idea!
Report this comment
Political Mongrel
March 16th, 2009
9:31 pm
We’ve been trading with China and Vietnam, negotiating with North Korea, and have relations with all of the ex-Soviet Union nations and eastern block nations that have been slowly migrating back toward Communism, and we’ve been doing some of this for decades. It’s time to quit making Cuba the only special case left.
Communism is eventually going to fail in Cuba. Let’s help push it on its way.
Report this comment
gttim
March 16th, 2009
9:50 pm
As long as we get to vacation there, I am all for it.
Man, I agreed with Bob Barr. I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
Report this comment
Reyx
March 17th, 2009
4:54 am
We buy all the junk China has to offer, even though they are a communist country and treat their citizens like crap. However, we are not afraid of little old Cuba and we should punish them, because they are communist.
Give a break.
Report this comment
Suffering Cats
March 17th, 2009
6:29 am
David S,
Are you serious? Because I wasn’t.
Report this comment
Atlanta Native 1969
March 17th, 2009
6:33 am
As a Democrat, I rarely agree with Bob on anything political, but Bob is right on the money on this. It is about time. Cuba is no more a threat. I mean, we trade with China (everything is about made there now anyway) and they are more of a Communist threat, so I don’t see what the problem is. If they allowed US travel to Cuba, I’d be on the first plane. Beautiful beaches, weather, and of course, the most beautiful women on the planet! End the embargo!
Report this comment
Dave
March 17th, 2009
7:14 am
I think we tell all the fat cats either you ok trading with Cuba or agree to a mandatory minimum of ten years in jail if you are caught with one of those Cuban cigars you have been smoking for all these years. These guys are hypocrites. Castro and his brother will not be around that much longer. We have been trading with Russia and China for years. We trade with President Chavez of Venezuela. We called Saddam Hitler and continued to buy oil from them as we invaded Iraq. It is time to end this farce we all know Cubans have been sending home money illegally for years and fat cats have smoked Cuban cigars for years as well.
Report this comment
Just Nasty & Mean
March 17th, 2009
8:15 am
…How about a couple more?
We could transform the Army’s hellfire missiles to contain and transport US dollars, and we could launch them over Cuba and SHOWER American dollars on the Cuban lower class in a MASSIVE redistribution of wealth DIRECTLY from the US Taxpayer to the dirt farmers. Each bill will have imprinted on it: “Courtesy of Barack Obama” so due credit is given.
Those Cubans coming to America would be given preferences in hiring, benefits, wages and promotions. I mean–after all—think how long they have been “held down” under their Socialistic/Communist system for decades (but you won’t be able to say that). Call it “Reparations”.
And all those 50/60s cars still running down there, we will FORCE Ford/GM/Chrysler to retrofit EACH of them to US emission control and mileage standards and seat belts, with a 100,000 mile warranty. Of course, we’ll provide tax breaks for building plants for parts in Cuba vs: the USA. The duty on US cars would prohibit any importing of them. After all, we don’t want to kill Cuba’s native industries?
When it comes to education, Obama could send an army of Washington, DC teachers to Cuba headed up by William Ayers, with BILLION$ in taxpayer dollars. We could give them a 1st hand view of government indoctrination–DC & Chicago-style— that makes Castro’s look like pre-school! (PS: NO VOUCHERS ALLOWED!).
Obama could anoint Monica Lewinsky as “Cigar Queen”, since she opened up a whole new use and application for cigars, greatly expanding the market. .
I think opening up trade with Cuba is a GREAT idea, Bob!
Report this comment
Frank
March 17th, 2009
8:25 am
I certainly wouldn’t want the USA to normalize relations with Cuba. The USA are known to be exploiters and Cuba would be required to accept conditions which would only benefit Americans.The last time Cuba and the USA were engaged in economic and political interaction,drugs and prostitution was very prevalent on the Island.I am Cuban and I personally would not want a one-sided relationship with the USA.Simply put,stay the hell out of my country!
Report this comment
Mr. KnowItAll
March 17th, 2009
9:11 am
FRANK!
GO BACK TO “YOUR COUNTRY”! You certainly don’t belong here!
Are you stating that it is America’s fault that your country is full of whores and drug dealers?
After calling the USA “exploiters”, you’re going to have to explain why we returned EVERY INCH of territory we won in WW1 and WW2 won with the blood of patriots, except the land needed to bury our dead.
TAKE THAT BACK you disrespectful ingrate! …and get the hell out of this country and back to Cuba–if it is so great….
Report this comment
Richard Swinger
March 17th, 2009
9:53 am
“Nasty and Mean” may you drown in the froth that flows from your mouth.
You are very apparently a truly miserable person. Just end it all man.
Report this comment
Richard Swinger
March 17th, 2009
10:11 am
I think it is high time that we normalize relations with Cuba. I never really liked Bob Barr, be he is absolutely correct on this one. When you consider his point about what we have actually gained over the past 50 years from this embargo..wow what an eye opener!!
And considering all the jabber and propaganda about Cuba’s suitability as a base for Russian bombers, they are once again laying the groundwork for a U.S. challenge. Why? Because they view us as a broke, brokEN, divided country and nothing like staging another showdown to show the world whether we are still a true superpower or a bunch of loudmouth chip on the shoulder chumps – which unforunately the last “regime” projected oh so well. Normalizing relations with Cuba I feel totally nullifies the Russian influence. You watch and see.. I bet silently Cuba and Cubans have been praying for such a thing for years now..
Report this comment
Proverbs 22:1
March 17th, 2009
10:33 am
Goooooooooooooood morning/ Ho-ray for Bob. The Cubans furnish M.D.’s around the world during troubled times and every body goes to school and pays attention.
Report this comment
Logical Dude
March 17th, 2009
4:53 pm
How about the US Nationalize the petroleum industry. We’ve nationalized so many BAD companies, we might as well grab some that are making huge profits.
::tongue in cheeck::
Report this comment
Eleanor Rigby
March 18th, 2009
9:41 am
What, now the government is responsible for our happiness? What a crock. Who comes up with this mess?
Report this comment
Toni
March 18th, 2009
12:10 pm
You are not guranteed to be happy it is a choice.
Report this comment
Jeff
March 18th, 2009
12:21 pm
I read an article about this in the AJC last week. The spin in that article was that rich people are happier than poor people. Without questioning the methodology our hometown paper wanted us to know that our rich neighbors are yukking it up while we suffer through the recession. No surprises there. Just good, old fashioned class warfare.
Report this comment
Jack Franklin
March 18th, 2009
1:13 pm
No one really cares what Bob Barr thinks. His space should be filled with someone’s comment who’s not a failed windbag.
Report this comment
Dave R
March 18th, 2009
3:45 pm
Don’t worry . . . Be Happy!
Just channeling a little Bobby McFerrin this afternoon . . .
Report this comment
jacksmith
March 18th, 2009
5:46 pm
Finally, the time has arrived to fix Americas Healthcare crisis, and Americas healthcare knightmare. Hundreds of thousands of you are killed needlessly every year by your healthcare delivery system in a rush to profit. And because of a rush to profit Hundreds of thousands more of you are needlessly dying from treatable illness that people in other developed and civilized countries don’t DIE! from. Rich, middle class, and poor alike. Insured, and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies.
Additionally, thousands more of you are driven into financial ruin, and bankruptcy just because you, or one of your loved ones got sick or injured. And all of this is happening at a time when America spends twice as much of it’s GDP (Gross Domestic Productivity) on health care than any other country in the developed world. Individual Americans spend about ten times as much on health care as any other people in the developed world. This is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. AND IT MUST END!
But before we can truly fix this healthcare crisis and disgrace, everyone needs to clearly understand what the problem is. And everyone needs to clearly understand the real enormity of the problem. The problem is that HEALTHCARE AND MEDICAL DELIVERY IN AMERICA IS SEVERELY CORRUPTED AND COMPROMISED BY GREED! AND THE PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MOTIVE. And it is corrupted, and compromised IN EVERY ASPECT, AND EVERY PLACE OF HEALTHCARE AND MEDICAL DELIVERY. Unfortunately for all Americans, compromised healthcare ALWAYS results in needless suffering, injury, disability, and or death. Which is exactly what is happening now in America in shocking numbers.
Health care is NOT! a private for profit business. Healthcare is an essential public service. Like police, and fire. And healthcare is also a human right! PRIVATE FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE IS AN OXYMORON, AND AN IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL PERVERSION OF HEALTHCARE AND HUMAN RIGHTS.
So how do we fix this healthcare disgrace? I believe the fix for Americas healthcare disaster is essentially the same thing that every other developed country in the World has essentially done. “NOT FOR PROFIT, TAX PAYER SUPPORTED, SINGLE PAYER, AUTOMATIC, FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE FOR ALL. Essentially HR676 (enhanced, and expanded medicare for all). Just like every other CIVILIZED! country in the developed World has. There is no other way to truly fix and reform our current disastrous healthcare delivery system.
All Universal health care systems work best when everyone participates. But I know that the healthcare lobby, and some politicians will try and undermine “Not For Profit, Tax payer supported, Single payer, Automatic, Free Universal Healthcare for all” by falsely claiming that it will limit your choice, and require you to participate.
So, I propose that everyone be included in the national plan unless they choose to opt out. If you opt out and need medical care the national plan will insure your provider that they will be reimbursed under the rules for members in the national plan. But those who opted out, and their insurer will be responsible for the FULL! cost to the national plan for providing your care if you or your private insurer fails to reimburse the provider or the national plan in a timely manor to at least the standards of the national plan.
Including reporting you to credit agencies, withholding of taxes, leans, and garnishment of wages for unpaid medical bills. Just like you have now under private for profit healthcare, and private for profit health insurance.
Further, people who opted out will be required to provide proof of financial responsibility for future illness or be required to participate in the national plan. And everyone with children will be required to participate in the national plan. Or provide proof of insurance coverage on each child to the standards of the national plan. It will be against the law to report anyone in the national plan to a credit agency for unpaid medical bills.
Frankly, only a dope would want to opt out of the national plan and opt to keep our current disastrous private for profit medical, and insurance plans. But they will be free to choose. The most important thing is that the vast majority of Americans that want the protection, benefits, and higher quality of a universal national plan have that choice.
You see, one of the most important aspects of a universal healthcare system is easy access, and patient protection. This is accomplished by having a single payer without a conflict of interest in patient care. And by having a payer who has the power to enforce minimum standards of excellence in healthcare delivery for everyone in the plan. This is much of what Medicare does now for senors. “Aeger Primo” (The patient first). Unfortunately in our healthcare system the patient comes last. We are just a peace of meat to them. Cash cows to be slaughtered for profit.
So this is IT! my fellow Americans, My fellow human beings, My fellow World Citizens. And my fellow Cyber Warriors.
The time has come. D day. H hour. HEALTHCARE REFORM THIS YEAR! Let no one stand in our way. Contact your representative and tell them you want “Not For Profit, Tax Payer Supported, Single Payer, Automatic, Free Universal healthcare for all. And tell them you want that choice now. Tell them you want President Obama’s budget passed without delay. President Obama’s budget is brilliant. And exactly what is needed now.
President Obama, and his allies will need all the support you can give them. The healthcare lobby will try to take out his people if they can, like they did with Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer. And they will try to neutralize President Obama’s popularity, and political power. Or they will try to take him down someway. Don’t stand for it. If they attack him. Go after them ten times harder and remove them from office. We had an election. And you the people chose President Obama’s leadership, and change agenda. Let no one in government disrespect the will of the American people and remain in office.
To President Obama, his Cabinet, the Congress of the United States, and the Supreme Court. I have noticed for some time a disturbing tendency for key members of your bodies to come down with illness, or medical problems at critical legislative times. This may just be coincidence. But I can tell you that there are a million subtle ways to medically injure someone just by doing nothing when something needs to be done. Or by doing things to someone when nothing needs to be done except to give them reassurance. I know for a fact that there are those that would have no qualms about hurting any of you to preserve our current disgraceful medical status quo.
So, I recommend as a matter of national security that you enlist the help of a friendly power to regularly review, and oversee the medical care you receive from your local regular healthcare providers. Briton, France and many other countries have excellent medical providers. As well as Canada. Briton, and Canada may be less of a language barrier for Americans.
Let’s get this healthcare reform done now my fellow Americans. This year. Take no prisoners.
God Bless All Of You
Jack Smith — Working Class
http://jacksmithworkingclass.blogspot.com/
(http://jacksmithworkingclass.blogspot.com/)
Report this comment
hryder
March 18th, 2009
5:54 pm
Very interesting! Seems to me that whether most people like it or not the tyranny of the majority should not be permitted to be activated. Even when lead by our unlawyerly like nonlogically thinking current president and members of congress who express the view and state that action will be taken to nullify the contractual bonuses paid AIG employees.
Report this comment
Catsis
March 18th, 2009
5:57 pm
Mr. Barr, finally the United States may be able to regain the respect of other countries throughout the world by re-examining archaic US foreign policies. Hopefully the shifting tide on U.S-Cuba policy is only the beginning of fundamental political change in Washington.
Report this comment
Eric
March 20th, 2009
10:45 am
You said it–glad the real story is out in the open. And what a victory–however small–for the curbing of big brother. Amen!
Report this comment
Allen
March 20th, 2009
11:18 am
One thing you failed to mention is the fact that the State required all camera intersections to add one second to the yellow light timing.
So what is it really — the cameras have done their job … or were the lights set for too little yellow time ???
Report this comment
Jack Franklin
March 20th, 2009
12:40 pm
How would we have ever figured this red light camera thing out without Barr?
Report this comment
Songbird
March 20th, 2009
12:54 pm
The red light camaras did their job too well, they stopped the idiots in this city from running red lights at every intersection they get to. When they come down, people will go right back to their bad behavior which is demonstrated at every light that doesn’t have a camara.
A better solution would be to upgrade the traffic light system in this state to synchronize the lights; perhaps then people would not run so many of them. I understand the frustration of having to stop at every intersection because the damn lights are out of synch with each other.
Report this comment
DawgBite
March 20th, 2009
1:09 pm
Now if we can get rid of profiling based on skin tone or accent I will believe that progress is being made. Some of the abuses of our 4th amendment rights is apalling. We have become more like despotic 3rd world countries than I would have ever believed. And the scary thing is that so called “conservatives” are marching in lockstep with the government on these abuses.
Report this comment
Terry
March 20th, 2009
1:10 pm
This may be the first time I have ever agreed with Bob Barr, but a big AMEN. If local officials want to raise money from people who run or misjudge red lights, just be honest about it. If it was not about money, then why were the fines set to be higher than the cost of the service?
Report this comment
geezeeman
March 20th, 2009
2:23 pm
QUESTION?????????
Was the collecting jurisdiction ever required to share the generated revenue with the State (who paid for a MAJOR portion of the signal cost) or with the Developer (who may have been required to contribute a significant amount towards the installation cost as part of them being allowed ingress/egress rights) or was the collecting jurisdiction allowed to keep all revenue.
Report this comment
jovan
March 20th, 2009
3:22 pm
I don’t think that red light cameras should be used for raising revenue. They should be used solely as a prevention tool — the prevention of injuries and death in traffic accidents at intersections.
Did you know that the areas without red light cameras are also the areas that experience the most preventable traffic fatalities? It’s true!
Report this comment
Road Scholar
March 20th, 2009
3:41 pm
So what was the difference in accident rates with/without the red light cameras? That is the measure of effectiveness we should be examining and discussing!
Report this comment
Mac
March 20th, 2009
4:21 pm
Atlanta has a long, proud history of five cars going through the red during every cycle, especially on left turn signals. The red light camera conspiracy screwed that up. Shameful.
Seriously, I hate the darn things. I slam on my brakes reflexively now the second the light turns yellow, when often the smarter thing to do would be slip on through.
Report this comment
R. Lamar Smith, CPA
March 20th, 2009
4:46 pm
I read that the one second that the state required to be added to the yellow cut down the number of tickets so that it wasn’t profitable anymore. It sounds like the timing was set to generate revenue. It’s clear that this kind of power is dangerous in the hands of government and even moreso in the hands of private companies who can use the short yellow to get more money.
Report this comment
Jim
March 20th, 2009
6:36 pm
The studies on whether they actually help reduce accidents have been mixed. They generally do reduce the number of accidents within the intersection, but, at the same time, the number of rear end wrecks from people slamming on the brakes to stop usually increases dramatically, so it’ s a push.
It is nice to see the truth come out. I think that was the gist of Barr’s column-not about whether or not the cameras were wrong, just about the lies that were told as the cameras were put in.
Report this comment
John
March 20th, 2009
7:02 pm
It only a matter of time before the leeches in government latch onto some other form of technology to use to extort our money; excuse me, I mean to protect us for our own safety. How about trying to ticket speeders using the cameras that line the highway, or the soon to be required GPS units in autos for the pay-by-the-mile tax to replace the gas tax, or the triangulation and tracking capability that cellphones already have. Oh and yes, I feel so much safer knowing that my involuntary use of a seat belt or else a fine is being done for my own safety too. Parasites.
Report this comment
Patrick
March 20th, 2009
7:05 pm
What this says is that the cameras worked. The threat of a ticket caused drivers to slow down and exercise more caution and restraint. This, I think, is what Atlanta traffic desperately needs more of. Nowhere else in the world where I have driven have I felt the overwhelming hurry-hurry urgency that I feel here. I know Atlanta has huge ego problems but it doesn’t need to be on the roads. The cameras helped that. But the second thing it showed was that town and cities ARE looking at these things as revenue sources and the only reason they don’t like them is that they were inconsistent or just not producing at all.
THAT is just baloney logic. The cities and towns need to stop looking at every little thing in terms of revenue. Sometimes you need to do things because they need to be done, not just because they bring in a dollar. It’s not all about the money. And yet the cities and towns are standing up and saying that is literally all they care about. Lives, safety, slowing down traffic, improving quality of life, hah! Revenue. Period.
The truth is, there are a lot more towns in this state than there need to be, and a lot more counties too. There needs to be wholesale local government consolidation across the state which would cut costs of operating government simply by putting a lot of these bureaucrats out of work.
Report this comment
Reality Check
March 23rd, 2009
11:05 am
Thank you Mr. Barr. the notion the we can strong arm Iran into anything is just silly. His attempts to reshape the nature of our dealings with Iran changes the way in which we are viewed in the rest of the Middle East. If nothing else, it allows us to retake the moral high ground and that is huge when it caome to what we can present to the rest of the world. As much as we hate to admit it, The worlds opion matters….
Report this comment
et gentin
March 23rd, 2009
11:08 am
Mr. Barr -
unfortunately prior attempts to “talk” with Iran failed. Jimmy Carter tried and failed (as he always does, miserably). Reagan tried. Clinton tried. Even George W was willing to engage if Iran suspended their rush for a nuclear weapons program, but that failed. While diplomacy is always a preference to threats or war, we need a basis to believe it has even minimal chances of success when if we wait Iran will get their nuke and create an arms race with her Arab neighbors….
Report this comment
The Voice
March 23rd, 2009
11:22 am
I wonder which of Shirley’s friends got the 8 million bucks….you can bet that it wasn’t a professional marketing firm….they wouldn’t put out such garbage.
Report this comment
SaveOurRepublic
March 23rd, 2009
11:55 am
We should be Constitutionally adherent and avoid these endless foreign entanglements…especially within the Middle East. This would encompass immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq & Afghanistan, & ending U.S. taxpayer funding of Israel & all other Middle East nations. Let them sort it out amongst themselves, and let the U.S. focus on improving our economy (via abolishment of the private Fed, IRS & a return to the gold standard/end of fiat currency).
Report this comment
Jack Franklin
March 23rd, 2009
1:03 pm
One columnist wants Obama to end hunger in the world: Now Barr wants Obama to appease Iran. Obama can’t even get his own house in order. Speculation about his ability to do anything other than orate is ridiculous
Report this comment
Michael Powers
March 23rd, 2009
1:36 pm
Mr. Smith, there is unfortunately, one gaping oversight in your argument. The fact remains that the current “greedy / for profit” system is equally balanced by the competitive drive to provide better care. Now that the government is itself a huge, greedy, for-profit business itself, giving it full reign over healthcare would instantaneously turn the healthcare system into a greedy, for-profit monopoly. The government can’t even compete in the mail delivery sector; what makes you think the government could handle healthcare? It’s an absolute joke! Obama is already talking about not covering combat wounds to save the government money. THAT is government healthcare for you. here is a letter from a danish man concerning their socialized medicine system:
Better? No choice you mean.
First setting this straight: social healthcare shouldn’t be paid by the sales taxes, but by our forced health insurance which is also some kind of tax if it’s forced. If you don’t pay it the police comes for you.
About the quality: I can’t believe any Dutchman like me still goes to Dutch healthcare. Sure, it costs a little, but in the surrounding countries you at least have choice and quality.
Know that we do not have permission to just enter a hospital here, we first have to get permission from the doctor we’re assigned to. Assignments are based on the area you live, and you can very well be assigned to a doctor that mistakes a heart failing for stress, or one that refuses to give you permission to visit a hospital for checking until its too late.
Then there’s the problem of waiting lists – with the government having the healthcare in hands there’s no need of competition, and even with critical problems that require immediate attention (like cancer, or even brain/heart injuries) they’ll gladly let you wait for a month. The mistakes made in healthcare are plentiful – I can’t count the victims of such mistakes made on relatives in the past ten years on one hand anymore. Some of which ended in a fatality while the problem was something that never should’ve caused that (appendicitis, refusing to look or operate in hospital until it bursted open – but you don’t have any chance or choice to go elsewhere).
Also know that the USA *health insurances* aren’t higher than here! Healthcare quality definitely is though, both in skill, technology and friendliness. Yes, they actually treat you as a customer instead of acting like a superior. At least, they did when I injured myself on a trip to New York. And you can even choose wether you want insurance or not, unlike here, where we’re forced to pay insurance and don’t even have a choice in where to go to. Now, for the quality we get we’re paying way too much money IMO. And you’re suggesting now that taxes are also going to healthcare, apart from the forced ‘insurance’ money. I sure hope this is not the case.
If you really believe our healthcare is good, so be it. But I can’t stress enough to go elsewhere for something as imporant as your well being. Belgium is much better already and they’ll accept people without government/doctor permission. Getting to know the right people also helps. Sure, it may cost money, but it’s a small price to pay for choice, especially if it’s about your life. Just to illustrate the difference: a full cardiac (heart) research with echoes and a week of recording (device) costs about $120 in Belgium, so yeah, that is very manageable. That’s what saying ‘hi’ to the doctor would cost here. They can afford it due to the monopoly and no one objects because it’s automatically paid by the forced ‘insurance’. God I sure hope it isn’t so rotten already that there is tax money going towards it on top of what’s already paid by the forced insurance.
So, to you USA people: Be very, VERY wary about government influences. More intervention is definitely needed in the current crisis, but after it, they have to go back to controlling only the necessary again unless you like the idea of losing basic rights like choosing a doctor/hospital yourself. Also note that takes here near the 70% of your income: 40-60% wage tax (depending on how much you earn, independents/undertakers) pay full), 19% VAT/sales tax on all non-food products you buy, property taxes, car taxes, forced insurances, damn… it might even be more. And what do you get back for it? One of the lowest quality education systems in the western world, health care that chooses for you and isn’t too good either, city security that utterly fails in every way possible… No, where I live it’s everyone for himself. The only difference with 2nd world countries is that you spent 70% on tax while getting no more. Perhaps even less, I have an extremely good experience with East European doctors, and in those countries you’re allowed to arm yourself to keep yourself safe. Not that there’s any control on the weapon law where I live (unfortunately).
At least I can now choose my insurance since two years instead of being stuck with the back then forced ‘freelancer/independent/undertaker’ insurance (if I had a normal job I would have gotten the cheap job insurance before). So now I at least also have an insurance that covers my dentist (like the job insurance) and it costs way less too.
“Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people.” – John Adams
Report this comment
Michael Powers
March 23rd, 2009
1:43 pm
… The Adams quote I added
Report this comment
twodawgs
March 23rd, 2009
10:53 pm
Naive B O is now discovering reality, what conservatives have known for years. We can’t deal with rogue and radical nations. President B O extended the hand and Iran took off the gloves, only to reveal a set of brass knuckles. Iran will NEVER make peace with the US until the US abandons Israel. When the U S does that, we are a doomed country.
JMHO.
Report this comment
Chris
March 24th, 2009
2:06 am
While there is no denying that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a loose canon and a radical anti-semite, it is well to consider a few facts. Iranians endured for over thirty years the increasingly repressive regime of Shah Mohammad Pahlavi, who this country backed financially and militarily. Iran also fought off a full scale invasion by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, who once again this country backed both financially and militarily. The resulting war lasted 8 years at a cost of about one million Iranian casualties, including an estimated 200,000 civilian deaths. Finally, Iran is a signator of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty while both Israel and India, with whom this country shares nuclear technology, are not. It is neither unpatriotic nor unreasonable to weigh these facts in pusuit of constructive diplomacy.
Report this comment
Tall
March 24th, 2009
8:05 am
The war in Iraq was much bigger than the majority of the world seems to realize. Not only was the purpose to stabilize Iraq and bring the country into the world, but also to ashphyxiate the Iranian economy. The Iranian military is no match for the U.S. However, waging conventional war against Iran would be very diffucult due to the Iranian geography and proximity to Russia. Iran has coveted Iraq and the geographic advantages it has for centuries. The sweet crude oil resources would be a bonus. Yes, Iran has oil but it is sour and can only be refined by a few countries(the U.S. is one). The Iranian economy has been contracting for years. Unemployment is rumoured to be 20% or higher. Only 40% – 50% of the population is Persian. The rest of the population consists of ethnic groups that have been persecuted for years. You can’t support terroism without money. Eventually, the mullahs will destroy their economy. At that point, they mey be weak enough to be ousted by a restless populace that has had enough.
The other option is not so pleasant. Presdient Obama will have a tough decision on his hands if the situation continues on its present course.
Report this comment
Just Nasty & Mean
March 24th, 2009
8:52 am
Bob, don’t be an idiot.
Where does Obama think the conversations should start? Please don’t wipe Israel off the map? Or, Please believe in the Holocaust? Or, please don’t bomb kill any more American soldiers? Or, please don’t sell Iraq insurgents more roadside bombs? Or, please don’t provide more rockets for Hamas and Hezbollah to launch helter-skelter into Israeli citizens?
Where do you start, Bob?
These ragheads never pass an opportunity to attack the US and our allies. They make no bones about their mission from Allah, and their “peaceful religion” to kill all infidels (pigs).
Is it beyond comprehension, Bob, that Iran would like to kill all Americans, Christians, Jews, and any other flavor of their own religion they don’t agree with? Is it possible that this theocracy is so deeply intertwined with political and international policy that centuries-old writings by a rag salesman and child molester, Muhammad, that they will be at war with ANYONE opposed to his teachings?
So, tell me Bob. Where does one begin in talking to a nutcase like Ahmadinejad?
Wasn’t it just last week Obla-bla-ma reached out to Cuba, only to have them threaten to bring in Soviet bombers into this Hemisphere?
Why not learn from centuries of history, Bob, and understand that what Obla-bla-ma did–in their society— is construed as a sign of WEAKNESS and a crack in our resolve—to be taken advantage of by Iran et al.
Suggestion: Stay on Liberterian issues, and leave international affairs to Buchanan, Hanson, and others who can incorporate history and religion into the equation.
Otherwise, you look the fool.
Report this comment
Chris Broe
March 24th, 2009
9:04 am
I guess my Shia Superstate never happened.
seems a shame.
Report this comment
IUHFDG
March 24th, 2009
12:37 pm
i agree with just nasty and mean
Report this comment
OneFreeMan
March 24th, 2009
1:38 pm
Bob, You never cease to amaze me, reason in the midst of confusion. I have always thought that you truly had the American people’s interest front and center.
Keep up the good work. Enough with the “my way or highway” crowd. You cannot expect dialog by giving orders.
Mutual Respect.
Report this comment
Kamby
March 24th, 2009
3:35 pm
Obama has good intentions I think. He sees that particular former strategies have been less than successful. I want him to succeed in this endeavor in a way(hopefully peaceful) that is truly beneficial for the US , in the long term. So we don’t have to deal with it anymore. That said, the people running countries like Iran today, are pragmatic with respect to their ongoing need for power. They KNOW if they don’t appease the more radical right wingers of their supporters, they will more than likely end up taking a dirt nap. 1 of the questions is, how long does the US wait for real substantive positive results? Or what has to happen for us to respond militarily?
The true answer will come, if we are lucky, when the USA no longer requires Middle Eastern oil for day to day functions. The week this happens, Iran, Iraq, and the rest of the oil barrons near the Strait of Hormuz become much less relevant. Once we stop buying their product, a huge money spigot will get shut off for them and they might have to change their international public policies.
There’s really only 2 ways for it to end. 1) Nuke them into extinction, rendering the US the largest mass murderers to ever walk the planet. 2) Get completely off their oil rendering them the largest country in the world whose only resource is SAND.
Report this comment
Eleanor Rigby
March 24th, 2009
9:25 pm
Kamby,
You hit the nail on the head. Not only would it make the mid-east less relevant but it would stop funding for terrorists. I believe there must be some alternative to petroleum. If we could turn our attention and resources to a viable alternative we could find a way. Ethanol is not the answer. If we could find a way to turn kudzu and garbage into fuel that might work. We have plenty of that. That’s kind of tongue-in-cheek, but still…
Report this comment
Eric
March 25th, 2009
7:35 am
Great idea! Makes sense to me.
Report this comment
Nobama
March 25th, 2009
8:23 am
I think congress should publish a list of all homeowners who required govt help with their mortgage. If any of these homeowners ever experience good fortune, I think all citizens should chase them down and get money back. OR
I think all civil servants who got bonuses at work last year should give them back since our govt has a Trillion dollar deficit.
Report this comment
Road Scholar
March 25th, 2009
9:36 am
If this idea moves forward, let’s also charge the Repubs for the cost of the Iraq war! They went in on trumped up issues and had no budget or new revenue to pay for it!
One solution is to ask for the bonuses back, and then investigate those who didn’t return it for fraud and marketing tainted assets. That is within their contracts!!!!
Report this comment
Eleanor Rigby
March 25th, 2009
9:43 am
Excellent idea. Pity Bob Barr isn’t Attorney General.
Report this comment
the best driver
March 25th, 2009
11:37 am
What a fantastic idea! If these congressmen, who voted on legislation which specifically approved these bonuses, had been working for a real business they would have been fired! They are incompetent liars, who couldn’t make it in the real world with a real job. If they really believed that people should take responsiblilty for their own mistakes, and that those most able should pay their “fair share” (see VP Biden), then they should apologize to the American people and pay up. What these congressman would rather do is create a smoke screen around their own culpability, and wrongly accuse other people, who have worked under a contract approved by these same congressman, of being greedy. In Wikipedia, they should post pictures of Sen Dodd and Sen Frank under the word “hypocrisy”.
Report this comment
Valentine Wiggin
March 25th, 2009
12:40 pm
Can we all say “Term Limits”?????
Report this comment
dave montgomery
March 25th, 2009
1:11 pm
The Greeks of 3000 years past never trusted their leaders beyond 4 years of public service. Will “We The People” take action during the next election ? Not likely.
Report this comment
mom
March 25th, 2009
1:30 pm
I work for AIG – whenever I hear someone complaining about the $165M in bonus’ I point out that there are approx. 165M who pay taxes; then I give them $1 and tell them to STFU and to never complain again since they have been paid in full!
Report this comment
luangtom
March 25th, 2009
2:11 pm
mom@1:30PM, consider yourself fortunate that you have a job that is funded by tax-payers’ money. Were it not for us hapless saps that are tax-payers, your business would be in the sewer like the rest of the economy. Get off your soap-box for AIG and appreciate where your salary is coming from…..US.
Report this comment
Californication
March 25th, 2009
2:40 pm
The best thing to do would be to institute the Fair Tax and get rid of the 77,000 page tax code we now have. Then one simple law that if a publicly owned company is losing money then NO bonuses will be paid to any employee. Problem solved!
Report this comment
MIke
March 25th, 2009
3:51 pm
The bonus should be recopupled from the employees and former employees of the division that created the mess – the derivatives side. The many divisions of AIG which were profitable, and where the employees had legally binding contracts, should not be penalized for the scandalous operation of one operating unit by having to return legally earned compensation.
Report this comment
catlady
March 25th, 2009
4:41 pm
Public servants generally cannot get bonuses, even a turkey or ham at Thanksgiving. In GA all teachers can “accept” is a free pass to go to home sports games (and then it is because they want us to come for crowd control.) And maybe some talcum power at Christmas from one of our kids.
I agree that money losing (and dole-accepting) firms should be regulated on the pay, benefits, and bonuses they can offer. The AIG squirrels should be given IOUs for AFTER their company repays the taxpayers (as if).
Report this comment
williebkind
March 25th, 2009
4:45 pm
I am sure most of the AIG employees worked very hard for some promised rewards above their huge salary. The fact is that AIG failed. The taxpayer is billed. Do they teach that at executive school? Many Americans worked hard and their company failed. They got nothing!
Just because you receive a so called good education does not grant you success during failure. That is what I see from the management of these large companies! The executives and managers expect huge payoffs even if their company fails. The employees of AIG stated they worked hard and the company profiited from their department. But the company failed. So they thinks the company should reward them regardless of the company failure. I do not get it. If the company thrives then the employee thrives. Someone should revisit executive colleges and see what their institution is teaching? But you know what is humorous is that the managers are behaving like AIG is a department of the government….OMG.
Report this comment
Scott
March 25th, 2009
4:54 pm
All this proves that Obama is completely in over his head. God help us all. All this administration wants to do is subsidize failure. They give money to people and businesses who cannot get out of their own way, but then they attack success (Exxon/Big Pharm/ Walmart). TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) is clueless.
Report this comment
hryder
March 25th, 2009
5:12 pm
All these after the fact offerings are amazing. Retroactive solutions are easy, here is another. Since many are unhappy with the big O, kick him out and the country can hold another election and whoever is able to B.S. the public more than anyone else will be the next entertainer in chief until the public realizes incompetence in administrative governance. Promises of various courses of action mean zero when anyone with a functioning brain SHOULD know that they will never occur due to illegality, lack of funds, Congress, lobbyists, and all the other competing money grabbers. The only thing that I know for certain that has occured and will to all is death!
Report this comment
TheTradingReport » Blog Archive » Bob Barr: Let Wealthy Lawmakers Pay For The AIG Bonuses
March 25th, 2009
6:55 pm
[...] From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: [...]
Report this comment
Copyleft
March 25th, 2009
8:02 pm
The “us against the world” attitude of clueless belligerence doesn’t work and usually makes our foreign relations even worse.
Don’t like Iran? Think they’re run by lunatics? Then IGNORE THEM. Don’t deal with them, trade with them, or pay them any attention at all. If they start attacking allies, pursue containment and sanctions as needed.
On the other hand, if they just want to smack-talk about Israel… who cares?
Report this comment
fed up
March 25th, 2009
8:31 pm
Ditto on the term limits, it’s way past time for that. Kick all of them out on both sides of the aisle.
Report this comment
ikesmith
March 25th, 2009
11:13 pm
Ask Bob about term limits, he got termed out not long ago.
Whoever is still feigning indignant about the AIG bonus’ should read this- and think about the alternatives: abrogate the original contracts (scary) or selectively tax such a specifically targeted subset of the populace (very scary).
Op-Ed Contributor – Dear A.I.G., I Quit! – NYTimes.com
Source: http://www.nytimes.com
Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, sent this letter on Tuesday to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=5
————
Bob Barr’s ad hominem rant about AIG bonus’: if there’s one thing I dislike more than the withered intellectual rigor of an ad hominem it’s Barr’s stupid mustache…
Report this comment
herbK
March 26th, 2009
7:42 am
Nothing new here. Congress & senate have long held two sets of standards: one for the unwashed masses, and one for those who matter, namely themselves. This nation, financially, is absolutely no different from an alcoholic or drug addict, meaning it hasn’t hit bottom yet, so it can’t begin to recover. AIG, GM and the banks who are in the TARP program should have been allowed to fail and dissolve. Would this create an additional burden due to additional unemployment? Yes, but the principle behind allowing them to fail would preserve trust, trust that government would not meddle in the private sector of capitalism. When companies such as AIG, GM, among others, come to D.C. looking for help, it implies that they have failed at producing a product/service geared for profit and their books are now in the red, hence they need financial help. What it really means is the simplistic message has been sent: management and labor both failed in their objectives and goals, and because of the differences, the company is in the red. Often, those differences are clearly defined, sometimes not so much. Why should government allow itself to become immersed in problems like this? Because, in the world of our current government structure, they actually believe they can solve problems. No one in D.C. today has problem solving skills. That is clear. These companies should be allowed to fail. New ones, with a quality philosophy of what is required of management and labor, will eventually take their place.
Report this comment
ken
March 26th, 2009
8:18 am
I find it amazing that most politicians are Lawyers and yet they voted for this package without reading it.When has a Lawyer not read a contract over several times before signing off on it?
This just goes to show you how little regard our leaders have for us.Everyone in our country should not vote for an incumbant next election, this will really send a message to Washington.
Report this comment
neo-Carlinist
March 26th, 2009
9:03 am
Bob,
The Casablanca reference is a bit over-played, but your screed is otherwise spot on. When I fantasize about a more Constitutionally driven government, I wonder why more Sentors/Congressmen are no impeached, terminated or otherwise removed from office for failure to achieve stated goals/objectives? Most private sector working stiffs are employed by virtue of a contract or agreement (verbal or written). Politicians take an oath of office, which avers, among other things to “…support and defend the Consitution…” So, is not de-regulating in essence a failure in one’s sworn duty to “regulate commerce”? At the end of the day, the paper trail for this shameless money grab (and when the dust settles, those paying attention will see it for what it is) leads to Washington, DC (both parties). All this “sock and outrage” coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and Capitol Hill is just a smoke screen. I’m a populist and I am outraged by the de-regulation of the derivatives and credit default swap markets; and I bear no animosity (or even envy) of the private sector worker bees who played by the rules (the rules changed by Congress/President). As I stated last week, this snowball started rolling down the hill when Bill Clinton (sincere, or not) wanted to eliminate what he perceived as racial bias (”red lining”) in the mortgage market. We’re not in this mess without Congressional (see: Financial Sector lobbyists) consent. As far as the AIG bonuses go, whether recipients are taxes at 25-35% or the 90% proposed by Congress, we’re talking about pennies on the dollar when compared to the $175 billion we’ve pumped into AIG. As the saying goes; that monkey is out of the cage. I’m no good at being noble, but it doesn’t take much to realize the problems of the American taxpayer do not amount to a hill of beans in this mess.
Report this comment
Chuck
March 26th, 2009
11:59 am
Recall the Movie The Hunt for Red October. The part where the aid to the President said “I am a politican which means I am a liar and a cheat which means when I am not kissing babies I am stealing their suckers.
Report this comment
Caveman
March 26th, 2009
11:24 pm
Anti-redlining laws caused the housing bubble and crash? So a law saying that banks can’t refuse to give loans just because the property is in a certain part of town did all this?
And the anything goes attitude in the mortgage industry had nothing to do with it? Or de-regulating banks so that they can invest in riskier commodities than before? Or allowing fly-by-night mortgage companies to write loans to unqualified buyers and sell them off as low risk investmments?
And they say Cons don’t get high.
Report this comment
Eric
March 27th, 2009
7:21 am
Thanks for reporting this, Mr. Barr. If the people can do anything to stop this, please let us know. I thought that is why we have representatives in the legislature, but I certainly don’t feel represented.
Report this comment
Caveman
March 27th, 2009
7:23 am
Anything that keep Rush on the straight and narrow is OK by me.
Report this comment
Davo
March 27th, 2009
9:41 am
This is a much better system than that antiquated Doctor, patient, pharmacist bond. Is there even such thing as private practice anymore?
Report this comment
steve
March 27th, 2009
11:24 am
look at KY! Look at other states that use CASTPER or PMP’s. Sure it helps however there is a Bill in Florida that does NOT put a patients name, home address and medical records on a WEBSITE! This system used only BioMetric’s like eye or finger print in place of personal patient information! Anything on the web is public! http://www.BioScriptRx.com is NOT a website and no patient information leave the doctor or pharmacy! EVER!
Report this comment
neo-Carlinist
March 27th, 2009
1:42 pm
are you the GEICO caveman or just a run of the mill caveman (who cannot read/comprehend written words)? I did not say the “anti-red lining” legislation caused this. What I said (wrote) was:
this snowball started rolling down the hill when Bill Clinton (sincere, or not) wanted to eliminate what he perceived as racial bias (”red lining”) in the mortgage market. We’re not in this mess without Congressional (see: Financial Sector lobbyists) consent.
The banking industry/Wall Street simply looked for the silver lining (how can we make money) in Clinton’s efforts to “regulate” the mortgage application/approval process and basically the banks said; “if you are going to force us to change our lending practices, you must make it easier (less oversight) for us to sell insurance on these iffy loans…” And thus the de-regulation of credit default swaps and derivative, etc.
So, is this all Clinton’s mess? No, but my point was it is not a Liberal/Conservative mess. It is a bi-partisan mess. The special interests (banks, Wall Street) etc.; a/k/a as the folks who continue to funnel money to Congress (both parties) don’t care about libs or cons. They care about legislation which allowed them to turn Wall Street into a casino.
Report this comment
Jefferson
March 27th, 2009
2:43 pm
True freedom and privatcy is so scary to the weak, they do their best to ban it.
Report this comment
Brill
March 27th, 2009
3:56 pm
This stinks! Me no likey.
Report this comment
Check Your Facts
March 27th, 2009
4:30 pm
You’ve got it wrong – the well being index isn’t just about ‘happiness’ it’s truly about overall well-being. The survey indicates if people are thriving, merely surviving or if they are struggling, and how they are dealing with their situation. This isn’t just a happiness meter, it is a combined measure of physical, mental, social and emotional factors that make up total well being. And another fact you have incorrect – Healthways is not a provider of insurance, they are a company that provides disease management and healthy lifestyle programs and coaching.
Report this comment
RX Revolt - Ga. legislation hard pill to swallow for privacy.
March 27th, 2009
5:25 pm
[...] Read more at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. [...]
Report this comment
Copyleft
March 30th, 2009
8:38 am
Here’s a thought to ponder, Mr. Barr:
You want to defend yourself against armed lunatics? So do we. And it’s the gun-fanatics who are the “armed lunatics” in question. We’re defending ourselves through legislation, keeping as many of these nuts disarmed as possible.
Report this comment
Nan
March 30th, 2009
8:38 am
Given that gun owners are twice as likely as non-gun owners to die from gunshot wounds, I’ve never quite figured out just who the gun nuts are defending themselves from — each other?
Report this comment
Joe
March 30th, 2009
8:51 am
Copyleft…Your legislation will only keep law abiding gun owners like myself from protecting ourselves. A criminal on the prowl does not care one iota about gun laws.
Report this comment
Sugar
March 30th, 2009
8:57 am
Slowly, one by one, our rights are being taken away from us. When do we stand up to this government that is supposed to be working for us? When did WE start working for the government.
When does it stop? When all the woman are wearing burkas and not allowed to leave the house?
Report this comment
David S
March 30th, 2009
9:01 am
The premise of all gun control laws is that criminals (people who break the law) will obey the law. Copyleft and Nan, please explain this logic.
Report this comment
clyde
March 30th, 2009
9:02 am
Nan—Where did you get you information from?
Report this comment
David
March 30th, 2009
9:03 am
I never have understood the rationale that arming citizens is a panacea for stopping or reducing gun violence. In south Alabama the man killed 10 and then himself before the armed law enforcement professionals could stop him (seems like an awful lot of these rampage perpetrators kill themselves). In Atlanta Brian Nichols killed two law enforcement officers – at least one of them armed – before surrendering. In Oakland last week four police officers were shot to death in pursuit of an armed suspect. Sometimes I think people like Mr. Barr as a kid watched too much of Matt Dillon and Little Joe Cartwright, i.e, “just put a gun in my hands and I’ll take care of any situation”; unrealistic fantasies that appeal to some testosterone-laden males. Actually, I think, if people start carrying guns in the federal parks, it won’t deter those who mean harm; the perpetrators will just shoot from ambush rather than chance confronting an armed citizen face-to-face.
Report this comment
zeke
March 30th, 2009
9:10 am
RIDICULOUS GROUPS LIKE BRADY AND PEOPLE LIKE COPYLEFT ARE SIMPLY SIGNS OF OUR COUNTRIES DEMISE! IF, IF, THE ACLU HAD ANY CREDIBILITY OR INTEGRITY, THEY WOULD SUE THESE GROUPS, AND, THE VARIOUS LIBERAL JUDGES WHO MAKE THESE ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS RULINGS! THE SUPREME COURT, IF, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN PACKED ONTO THE BENCH BY LIBERALS RULED WITH ANY COMMON SENSE, WOULD THROW OUT ALL THESE UNAMERICAN SUITS AND GROUPS! IT IS NOT THOSE WHO HAVE CARRY PERMITS WHO ARE THE PROBLEM! IT IS THE CRIMINALS WHO OBEY NO LAWS AND GROUPS LIKE BRADY! CHECK THE FBI STATISTICS! IN ALL THE YEARS SINCE CWP’S CAME INTO EFFECT, THERE HAS BEEN ONE, ONE INCIDENT OF A CWP HOLDER DOING SOMETHING WRONG WITH HIS WEAPON!!! AND THOUSANDS WHERE A CWP HOLDER HAD PREVENTED A RAPE, ASSAULT OR MURDER BY HAVING HIS WEAPON!!!
Report this comment
Turkey Slayer
March 30th, 2009
9:12 am
We have a simple solution to this problem. Arm yourselves and defend yourselves even if it means breaking the law. I would rather be alive and a law breaker than a dead law abiding citizen.
Report this comment
Road Scholar
March 30th, 2009
9:18 am
While the premise of needing an EIS for the gun law is ludicrous, the more important issue is why would anyone go out of their way to go to a Federal Park to shoot someone! Is this using the same database from GA on election fraud?(I support voter ID, but have never heard of a specific related crime at a polling station in GA.)
There are trained Park Rangers who can be contacted to assist the people if they are threatened. Otherwise it would be the wild west.
Report this comment
ESR
March 30th, 2009
9:18 am
Copyleft, are you insane? It’s not law-abidding citizens you see on the news daily robbing places and shooting innocent and hardworking store clerks daily in this city. The only way to protect yourself from the out-of-control crime these days is to self protect with a legal and permitted gun. Crazy people like the man that killed the innocent people at the nursimg home should be shot dead on the spot, just like the two thugs that shot the store clerk last week. I bet those two guys were hard working, upstanding young men, yeah right. Face it, this is Atlanta, a city full of thugs running around with hoodies on looking for a victim. I for one may be a victim someday, you never know what will happen but I won’t go down without a fight.
Report this comment
Davo
March 30th, 2009
9:34 am
Copyleft and Nan obviously have very little regard for their fellow citizens. To them that neighbor down the street with the NRA bumpersticker is the one to watch out for…not the transient raking leaves for a hit of crack. But I digress…protect yourself as you see fit. Just allow me (under the Constitution, btw) to do the same.
Report this comment
David S
March 30th, 2009
9:40 am
Turkey Slayer – The proper phrase is “I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.” Yes, being alive to defend your right to be alive is superior to being dead and the government wiping their hands of any complicity through their rights-violating legislation.
Report this comment
Saul Good
March 30th, 2009
9:43 am
I’ve hiked thousands of miles over the years in both State and Federal forests… never have I needed a gun. Nor will I ever. I’ve seen bears before and they’ve entered my campsite. Know what happened? Nothing. You are more likely to get killed or shot going to a gas station compared to going camping or hiking. Know what statistic you left out Bob? More people are killed in our state and national parks by hunters every year (accident shaxident…just ask Dick Chency)…then have been killed by murderers or wildlife in over the past 20 years.
Want to keep our parks safe? Ban hunting in them. Hunters kill people.
Report this comment
David S
March 30th, 2009
9:49 am
Road Scholar – What is the phone number for the ranger? and how long do you think it will take him/her to come file the report on your death?
If all of you folks are too afraid of yourselves or of guns to protect yourself, then fine. What gives you the right to take away my right to keep myself alive? Since when did you become god, or the elected officials you cheer on? You fail to realize that you too benefit from thousands of individuals carrying legally in society. When a criminal knows that anyone might be carrying, it is an implicit deterent, even if you don’t have a gun. Yes, you can come up with a million ways in which a criminal can still kill you even if you have a gun. It just becomes THAT much easier to do if he knows you are a law abiding citizen and definitely don’t have one.
Again, please explain how my carrying a gun in any way violates your rights. And please do explain by what right do you believe it is ok to take away might right to preserve or defend my life??? By the way, the Supreme Court has ruled very clearly that it is NOT the reponsibility of law enforcement to protect me in any way.
Report this comment
Jimbo
March 30th, 2009
9:51 am
@Copyleft
Claiming that more people people who own guns die from gunshot wounds is ridiculous. YES it’s true, but it’s because suicide is the highest cause of gun related deaths in the nation. You should also note that many more people commit suicide in the US than are murdered. Your little factoid is taken out of context and is completely irrelevant. Or, if you really wanted to save lives you might try taking the money devoted to anti-gun lobbying and devote it to treating depression. If you guys did that then the NRA would disappear and their money could go to curing cancer or something else that’s actually useful. The fact is that out of 2.4 MILLION deaths in 2005 (the last year where stats are given by the CDC) guns killed less than 30,000 people total and wounded under 70,000 (That includes all uses both legitimate and criminal, so when a cop shoots a bad guy it’s included in those statistics). That sounds like a lot, except cancer killed hundred of thousands and cirrhosis killed tens of thousands. Cars killed almost 50,000 and wounded over a million people. If you want to talk about things that kill people, guns are pretty low in the list. In 1994 (the time such a study was done) 110,000 crimes were stopped by armed citizens, that number isn’t from some lobby group, that number is from the DoJ. 1994 was the last year crime rose in our country before falling sharply. By the way, crime continued to fall sharply even as more than a million new guns were purchased every year and concealed laws proliferated across our country.
I guess what I’m saying is that you’re an idiot who hasn’t done their research and likes the convenient easy to chew sound bites you get off the brady campaign to end gun ownership (because it doesn’t stop gun violence) website.
@David
It’s not a panacea, it’s a chance you won’t have if you’re not armed. You said it yourself, law enforcement response times are long and getting longer as city and state government reduce police services. At the same time crime goes up because of the deteriorating economic situation. Why don’t you mention Pearl, Mississippi? You know, where a vice principal recovered his gun from his car and stopped the rampage? Why don’t you mention the numerous articles here in the AJC where a person defend their home or person from criminals? How about the fact that most cops I’ve met are appreciative of the fact that I carry a gun and support the carry rights of citizens? I don’t think anyone who carries believes they can simply carry a gun and everything will be ok, that shows ignorance on your part. It takes training, knowledge, and maturity to carry a gun and use it properly. It’s not for everyone and I’m ok with that, but I don’t think it’s right for you to decide that it’s not right for me either. I’d rather have the chance and take the risk than not. You rely on the police, I’ll rely on myself.
Report this comment
Copyleft
March 30th, 2009
9:55 am
I see the confusion continues about some imaginary distinction between “law-abiding citizens” and “criminals.” They’re the exact same people, folks. Even the same color, hard as that may be to believe.
The biggest gun-related risk to a typical suburban resident is his armed neighbor, friend, or family member–not a mythical “career criminal who ignores gun laws and seeks out middle-class suburbanites to rob and victimize and violate the wimminfolk, bwa-ha-ha-ha!”
So yes, the neighbor with the pickup and gun rack and NRA sticker IS a more serious threat than the homeless guy raking leaves. Because everyone carrying a gun is school, church, or mall shooting spree just waiting to happen.
The line between “law abiding gun owners” and “deranged mass-murderers and career criminals” doesn’t exist. They’re YOU.
Report this comment
Jay Dubbe
March 30th, 2009
10:05 am
I think the anti-gun crowd is missing the point. Take yourself as the example. If I gave you a gun, would you feel compelled to go shoot someone just because you possess the means to do so? Of course not. You could fill Philips Arena with 20,000 responsible people, all carrying guns, and not have one incident.
Why is so hard to understand that evil people will perform evil acts, be it with a gun, knife, a 2×4? If evil is ingrained within some, and they cannot be reasoned with, then by all means, give us the means to defend ourselves.
Report this comment
Joe
March 30th, 2009
10:09 am
WOW copyleft…do you want to go ahead and put a match to the Constitution? There is a very real distinction to criminals and law abiding citizens. I suppose we should castrate all men because there is no distinction between law abiding citizens and the criminal pediphile? Wake up! You can not just toss out the constitution because you don’t want the ability to protect yourself and your family…I will put my families safety in my own care before I push it off on someone else.
Report this comment
Copyleft
March 30th, 2009
10:17 am
Joe: Tell me what’s unconstitional about this… given that the Supreme Court has upheld our right to regulate gun ownership (a “well regulated militia,” remember?) every single time it’s been challenged.
Regulating gun ownership is the epitome of Constitutional process.
Report this comment
Jimbo
March 30th, 2009
10:31 am
Dear Copyleft,
Please provide the statistics that support your argument. There isn’t any evidence that you’re correct when I review the CDC mortality statistics on the subject unless you’re counting suicides. All told, police shootings included there are around 30,000 gun related deaths in a year. That sounds like a lot, but we’re a nation of 300 million people and two and a half million of us die every year. Over half of those deaths are suicides, less than 10% are accidents and the rest are homicides. The number of homicides include legitimate shootings by cops which are just a few hundred. In the grand scheme of things you’re more like to die of cirrhosis of the liver than a gunshot wound.
You fail to point out that there are as many guns in this country as there are people and that something like 40-50 million households own guns. So the people you speak of as “lunatics” are actually a larger demographic than some minorities. You also fail to point out that the assault weapons ban (which I’m sure you would say reduced crimes with assault weapons by 40%, just like the brady campaign talking point says) only reduced overall gun crime by 2% according to the DoJ and that in the year before its enactment crime began a freefall that continued to 2005, which it hit its lowest point in almost 40 years. During this span of time concealed carry laws proliferated across the nation and now only a handful of states deny qualified citizens the right to carry. The truth is Copyleft, that we’re all around you.. carrying every day. The best information I can find on Georgia carry permits indicates that there are tend of thousands of applicants every year and many years applications for concealed carry permits exceed 100,000. That means with years of permits being issued there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people with concealed carry permits in Georgia alone. Tell me, copyleft, where is the gun fueled holocaust? Oh right, you just repeat the statistics you’re fed without any real understanding of the facts.
Report this comment
a
March 30th, 2009
10:40 am
Copyleft is cracking me up and he obviously is a product of the public/government school system (say you’re a female, or that you’ve stepped foot into a private school, and I’ll call you a liar!)!!! Too funny, his “interpretation!” OOOOoooooohhhh…..legislation! THAT will REALLY scare murderers and rapists who use the north Ga. trails such as the north Ga. mountains and the Silver Comet Trail to find female victims! According to CopyLeft, if Meredith or the woman who died on the SCT had had guns on them, THEY would have been the dangerous ones! Oh, please tell me you didn’t go to school in Georgia!!
Umm, Nan, you’ve been asked to come up with your source….hiding??
Road Scholar – Have you come up with that handy-dandy number we can all use to contact our friendly, 5-mile away park ranger while being attacked?? And if the attacker has our phone, or doesn’t give us a 3-minute time-out to call the friendly park ranger while being attacked, do you have any advice for us regarding what to do?
Do any of you think Meredith might be alive if she had had a gun? Or are you saying it is her fault for not giving the attacker a time-out and calling a magic number to get a park ranger beamed down to her spot where she was ultimately decapitated?
Seriously? Copyleft and Road Scholar and Nan? You don’t think Meredith should have been allowed to have a gun? You are all saying (esp CL) that Meredith would have been dangerous if she had had a gun?
Thank you to all of you who are literate, who know how to read the Constitution, and who work several jobs so that your kids don’t have to attend CopyLeft’s government school.
Report this comment
Joe
March 30th, 2009
10:43 am
Copyleft…the Constitution says a well regulated militia, the very next line says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Report this comment
a
March 30th, 2009
10:49 am
Nan said: “Given that gun owners are twice as likely as non-gun owners to die from gunshot wounds, I’ve never quite figured out just who the gun nuts are defending themselves from — each other?”
So, if Meredith had had a gun on her park trail, she would have been a gun nut, and she would have been dangerous?
Road Scholar said: “There are trained Park Rangers who can be contacted to assist the people if they are threatened. Otherwise it would be the wild west.”
So Meredith should have called the Park Ranger?
Copyleft said: “I see the confusion continues about some imaginary distinction between “law-abiding citizens” and “criminals.” They’re the exact same people, folks.”
So, if the law had allowed Meredith to have a gun, you would have eyed her as a criminal? This quote of yours is perhaps the most laughable of all.
Copyleft said: “The line between “law abiding gun owners” and “deranged mass-murderers and career criminals” doesn’t exist.”
Ask anyone who knew Meredith, or Jennifer Ewing, and they’ll tell you differently, I bet.
Report this comment
GTchemE
March 30th, 2009
10:49 am
You all ask why anybody would actually need a gun in a national park. I’ll admit that one in a million people would never actually need one. However, just remember that man who killed God-knows how many people on hiking trails in North Georgia over many years time. I’m sure one of his victims would have loved to have been armed.
Report this comment
John
March 30th, 2009
10:58 am
I think the anti-gun crowd is missing the point. I bought my gun under the assumption that I’ll never have to use it. I want it to sit and collect dust. However, if the day does come where my life or my family is put in danger I will be happy knowing that I have the greatest possible advantage to protect them. Ask yourself this…if someone invades your home and you’re tied up watching your wife being raped I can promise you that the thought of you having a gun will enter your head. You won’t just sit and passively accept it.
Report this comment
rogsmith66
March 30th, 2009
11:07 am
I am not worried about Legal gun carrying citizens having a gun in our parks. The ones you need to worry about are the bad guys who have no regard to laws. I was almost mugged one time. If it were not for my handgun, eith my wife or myself may have been hurt or worse. I welcome the sight of a person open carrying a handgun. He will be your friend. A person who is up to no good will always try to hide his intentions.
Report this comment
David S
March 30th, 2009
11:09 am
I think these responses make it very clear who in our society is the REAL threat to our personal safety – Road Scholar, Copyleft, Nan, and Saul Good (and everyone like them). We would still be living under a British thumb if it were up to them.
Again, by what right do you get to decide whether I live or die?
Who made you people god?
The constitution is in plain english. The Declaration of Independence is written in the same clear english. My rights are inalienable. They are mine because I exist. They do not come from government, they come from my creator (whomever or whatever that might be). First among them is LIFE. That does not negate my personal responsibility. Once I step over that line and violate YOUR rights, then fine. Up until that point, keep your “divine” wisdom away from MY RIGHT TO LIFE!
Report this comment
ESR
March 30th, 2009
11:11 am
Are we going to ban knives too? After reading how the nutcase in MA decapitated his sister after stabbing his other sister to death, perhaps we should move to ban knives too. Had someone had a gun at that scene, perhaps two innocent people would still be alive today and a gravedigger would have a job to do today. The ciminals running around today pick their targets. They’re much less likely to run up to a pickup truck with an older while male who has an NRA sticker and a Support the Troops decal; they know we’ll blast them to hell and back and still be home for supper.
Report this comment
Emily
March 30th, 2009
11:18 am
Gun control means hitting your target. I think everyone should have the right to be armed and ready to blow someones head off if threatened and in danger. If more people carried weapons think of all the criminals we could knock off and not end up having to pay more taxes to keep them fed and watered in jail.
Report this comment
KUERG
March 30th, 2009
11:20 am
BETTER TO BE TRIED BY 12 THAN CARRIED BY 6
Report this comment
JJ
March 30th, 2009
11:20 am
I’m a proud gun owner. I am armed, and I know how to use it, and I will. I carry it just about everywhere I go.
Report this comment
David S
March 30th, 2009
11:25 am
What I find most amuzing about the anti-gun croud is that they personally don’t want to be in a position to have to kill or injure someone in order to defend their lives, but they are more than happy to be paying someone else to do their killing for them. They are not pacifists nor do they even pretend to follow such a principled journey through life.
They are the same folks who condemn Hitler’s violent actions, but conveniently ignore the fact that two of his first laws were to ban private schooling and gun ownership. Just aske the jews in the Warsaw ghetto how successful they would have been if not for their conscious and willful refusal to obey when told to disarm.
Just look at the violent crime rate in both England and Australia since virtually every gun was “banned” in those countries. Sky high.
There is no point in arguing with these types. They do not care about the constitution. They do not care about your life. They are comfortable with their complicit subservience to the authorities for the so-called promise of safety. Time and time again history has shown their type to be on the receiving end of everything bad. But then how would a wolf survive without sheep to feed on?
Report this comment
GA Gun Toter
March 30th, 2009
11:25 am
All of you people who rely on law enforcement to keep you safe should remember a few things (1) the cop carries a gun for his (or her) protection, not yours; (2) people licensed to carry a firearm are statistically more law abiding than the rest of the general public and law enforcment officers (didn’t 3 rogue APD officers MURDER an innocent, law abiding citizen a couple of years ago?), and (3) when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Your Founding Fathers sought to protect your right to bear arms and defend yourself. They had a reason. Wake up people.
Report this comment
bob
March 30th, 2009
11:26 am
i have a winter handgun and a summer handgun depending on how i need to dress to conceal the weapon. i take it everywhere regardless of the law – SEE KUERG, 11:20AM
Report this comment
Mafuta54
March 30th, 2009
11:33 am
I have fire insurance on my house, yet I hope I never need to use that insurance. Does that make me a pyromaniac just waiting to burn my house as well as yours? If my house ever catches fire, I will be glad that I have insurance! I hope to never have to use my gun either, but if the need arises, I will be glad that I have it as well.
Report this comment
JJ
March 30th, 2009
11:45 am
If Meredith had a gun, and knew how to use it, she would be alive today, and the deadbeat who killed her would be taking a dirt nap.
I’m all for gun ownership. Especially in these times!!!! I’m also for gun education.
Report this comment
Jefferson
March 30th, 2009
11:45 am
Cats and dogs.
Report this comment
matt
March 30th, 2009
11:46 am
Copyleft and Nan – Try to be a little more self sufficient. Do not rely on the government to step in and save you. You’re a human being; not a passive, submissive Paris Hilton style dog. I hope you never confront evil or insanity, because if you ever do- you’ll surely wish you were armed and not the pushover that you are.
Report this comment
tommcginnis
March 30th, 2009
11:51 am
What an astounding array of ignorance displayed here, in those wishing to quash the self-responsible right to bear a firearm in protection of self, family, and society. Horrendous, really. But to return to the National Park System and the associated firearms ban as the primary subject: please remember three things: 1) the “ban” was/is not that old; 2) the effect on NPS crime was/is nil 3) the only for-sure, concrete result was the ridiculous criminalization of those exercising their self-responsible right to bear a firearm, even while in transit as for example, while traveling the Blue Ridge Parkway or Rt 441 through the Smokys, hopscotching across NPS lands often without designating signs.
Report this comment
D-Rock Sizzle
March 30th, 2009
11:52 am
I just purchased my first firearm at the Eastman Gun Show in Savannah this weekend. I’ve been properly trained and do not take the responsibility of owning a gun lightly. I’m very glad that I have a S&W .40 to confront home invaders rather than a baseball bat. If you liberals are so afraid of me having a weapon for self defense, then don’t invade my home and you won’t get shot!
Report this comment
Dan
March 30th, 2009
11:55 am
My Guns have still killed less people than Ted Kennedy’s car. My Guns: 0 Ted Kennedy’s Car: 2
Anti-Gun Extremist Liberals are delusional as you can see from the facts..
Report this comment
ESR
March 30th, 2009
11:57 am
The anti-guns zealots must not think we ever watch the local news in Atlanta. They must not realize that we know that cops are having to send emails to people saying that whole parts of Atlanta is not safe (thank you Queen Shirley for running such a safe city!) even when walking to or from your vehicles to your doors or talking to a neighbor in your own yard. I suppose this way of life is the norm to them. They must not realize we know that the leaders of most of the metro area continually fail in regards to keeping us safe. They want us to roll over and play politically correct. We’re not stupid, we know what’s going on on the streets and although we can’t for sure say we won’t ever be a victim, my locked and loaded Sig 9 mm in my truck and my pump 12 gague in the home makes my chances a little less than that of Copyleft.
Report this comment
Dan
March 30th, 2009
12:06 pm
Gun manufacturers should stop selling to guns & ammo to Police departments in liberal districts, since they hate guns so much. Because, you know, we wouldn’t want to encroach on their liberal values. I for one see this country balkanizing eventually. That will be a good thing, because that would leave the liberals (like Copyleft) to their own devices. After they self destruct by killing each other with whatever sharp objects they can get their hands on, after their socialist utopia collapses & everyone is starving & robbing each other, we can move back in & use the land & resources for something positive..
Report this comment
DDT
March 30th, 2009
12:06 pm
Jay Dubbe
March 30th, 2009
10:05 am
I think the anti-gun crowd is missing the point. Take yourself as the example. If I gave you a gun, would you feel compelled to go shoot someone just because you possess the means to do so? Of course not. You could fill Philips Arena with 20,000 responsible people, all carrying guns, and not have one incident.
Do they sell beer in Phillips? If so, think again Jay Dubbe.
Report this comment
DDT
March 30th, 2009
12:17 pm
How many “law abiding” citizens are buying guns that wind up in Mexico? Obviously quite a few. But then they couldn’t really be considered “law abiding” could they. And how many of these “law abiding” citizens have been involved in all these rampages we’ve seen recently? Again, kind of cloudy as to how “law abiding” they really were all along. More than likely if any of you wannabe gunfighters have to have your peice pried from your cold dead fingers, it will probably be another “law abiding” wacko that took you out. Remember the “law abiding” wacko in Florida that went inside and got his gun to straighten out his neighbor for too many bags of garbage out at the curb. Wasn’t this “law abiding” citizen just that right up to the time he blew his neighbor away over garbage bags? You guys sure like to throw around that “law abiding” line knowing full well that most shootings and almost all shootings involving household incidents or accident are perpetrated by who? “Law abiding” citizens, that’s who.
Report this comment
My Gun/My Right
March 30th, 2009
12:18 pm
Copyleft, I hope that you have recently slipped, fallen and hit your head, as your comments are more than ignorant. I hope that you do not one day find yourself in a situation where you need a firearm for self defense, because I am afraid that you just might try to throw it at your assailant. But in case you do one day pull your head out of the sand and decide to lawfully defend yourself, the barrel of the gun is to be pointed at your attacker. Oh, and read the Constitution, and ALL of its amendments when you have time.
Report this comment
Saul Good
March 30th, 2009
12:19 pm
I love how some of you gun “owners” cite the 2nd Amendment. As if you even understood what it means. To be honest… the “right to bear arms” means that if I have the means to afford one… I should be able to protect myself with a small nuclear weapon…perhaps a few missile launchers as well. If those are the “arms” I choose to “protect” myself and my family… you show me where it says anywhere in our constitution or any of our amendments where I can not have those things.
What part of “well regulated militia” do the majority of you not understand. Want to go to the woods? Leave your guns at home. As I stated above…I’ve hiked thousands of miles and never had the need for one. Yet not ONE of you has responded to what I said above…the MAJORITY of people that have been killed in our nations parks…have been killed by HUNTERS. Dare you now prove me wrong. You can’t. All statistics point to what I just wrote as being both true and factual.
Report this comment
Dan
March 30th, 2009
12:21 pm
I think we all agree that guns & more than a small amount of alcohol don’t mix.. In other words the same laws that apply to drinking & driving should apply to handling a firearm. I don’t know one legally carrying firearms owner that would disagree with that.
Liberals try to paint us as the nuts, when in fact their party’s constituents make up most of the U.S. prison population..
Report this comment
Jonesy
March 30th, 2009
12:24 pm
The one thing I keep noticing that is missing is this important distinction: The law was written allowing those that ALREADY HAD A CCW to CONTINUE carrying in national parks located in that state. It did NOT give the normal non-licensed individual the right to suddenly carry a loaded weapon.
Now the crux of the reversal is as Mr. Barr described it. A loaded weapon is no different than an unloaded one (as complying with the existing old law-unloaded and ammo separate) as far as environmental impact. So the reversal on the new ruling is just a bogus loophole someone decided to use to stall the ruling by saying the Bush admin didn’t ‘check’ the box. And I’ll bet anyone a round that it wasn’t checked for the old rule either.
Now for my friends Copyleft, Nan, etc…..please….lighten up. You can hate guns all you want, you can use stereotyping, insults and all other rhetoric to describe folks who own guns…whatever, it’s your right to feel that way and say what you want. You can choose which rights you do or do not excercise. I choose to exercise the 2A, and it’s my right to own and carry a firearm if I so feel inclined. So please respect others’ rights. You do as you want, but please leave me to do as I see fit.
Do the people around you know that you have so little trust in them? I’ll bet that they would definately see a distinction between them and career criminals/mass murderers. I know there’s a huge one between myself and people like those: I’ve never been arrested. Can you say the same? I wonder who you think the “good guys” really are….
Report this comment
Dan
March 30th, 2009
12:27 pm
Saul Good, would a militia not consist of individuals? & where in the Constitution does it say that those individuals can’t take their guns home for their own protection?
Also, there has never been any argument made by gun owners that they should have access to a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION.. You’re being ridiculous, & twisting the facts because you can’t come up with a rational argument against firearms.
Lastly, I’m sure you drive an automobile, which kills more people than guns do in this country, but I don’t hear you liberals asking to have your cars taken away.. You’re arguments are biased & idiotic.
Report this comment
Dan
March 30th, 2009
12:32 pm
Hey Saul Good.. Care to back up your BS claim (see below) with some data? Links? Proof? We’ll be waiting.. A LONG TIME I think..
“the MAJORITY of people that have been killed in our nations parks…have been killed by HUNTERS. Dare you now prove me wrong. You can’t. All statistics point to what I just wrote as being both true and factual.”
Report this comment
Jonesy
March 30th, 2009
12:32 pm
Saul Good: Check these statistics – more people die in car and traffic accidents every year than in all gun related incidents combined.
So here we all are going about our daily business in large, heavy, motorized deadly pieces of equipment that are all regulated up the wazoo (as if that does anything but generate revenues); and there are no calls to ban cars, not even those evil, deadly sports car types. Yet we go day to day trusting that the guy next us on the highway is going to do his best to NOT cause an accident and kill us on the way to work.
Report this comment
Chuck
March 30th, 2009
12:37 pm
Maybe, just maybe, they the public should check on the number of times the A.F. 1 has been flown and various members of congress have used AF planes for their use. Could we the tax payer demand that they pay time and charges for the use???
Report this comment
AJC Reader
March 30th, 2009
12:38 pm
Why does everyone assume that the loaded firearm would necessarily be used to defenda against another *person*? Was there something in the law/rule/proposed rule change that said that? Because it seems to me that if I am hiking in a national park, I am a heck-of-a-lot more likely to want a loaded firearm to protect me against wildlife than against another person.
Report this comment
Copyleft
March 30th, 2009
12:41 pm
It’s amusing how many of the gun fondlers claim to be experts on the Constitution, yet continue to insist that regulating gun ownership–an act specified in the Second Amendment itself–is somehow “unconstitutional.”
Clearly, some remedial reading training is needed… but not for those of us who can read the ENTIRE amendment.
Report this comment
Mafuta54
March 30th, 2009
12:42 pm
It is for defending against 2 legged as well as 4 legged varmints! It just seems that the “Anti’s” always refer to gun/2A enthusiasts as going to kill people left and right!
Report this comment
Mafuta54
March 30th, 2009
12:45 pm
If you read the second amendment, it says nothing about regulating the right to keep and bear arms. What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?
A well regulated militia… not a well regulated bearing of arms!
Report this comment
ESR
March 30th, 2009
12:49 pm
Yeah Copyleft, reading a bill is critical. Would have been nice had you democrats read all of the so called stimulas package, you could have read Dodd’s little insertion about the AIG fatcats getting to keep the contractual bonuses. I suppose they were too busy kissing Obama butt to bother ot read it. That would have saved all the phony and fake outcry from Obama and his confederacy of dunces on the hill.
Report this comment
Bob
March 30th, 2009
12:54 pm
This is why I voted for you Bob. Keep it up!
Report this comment
JimInMT
March 30th, 2009
12:58 pm
Amazing how the anti-gun people are so “positive” that they cannot address facts, having to resort to insults and ad hominem attacks against perfect strangers — the rest of us, since they do NOT know who does or does not own a gun in their neighborhoods — including some NRA members who choose not to own, but belong to that group for its express defense of the ENTIRE US Constitution. What a bunch of stupid paranoid morons! How you idiot leftist weenie cry-baby sheeple like to be insulted? Makes you feel good and superior to the rest of us doesn’t it? But, it does not change FACTS. FACT: 60 million law-abiding gun owners in the US did NOT kill anyone this year. Or last. EVER!
Report this comment
shark60
March 30th, 2009
12:59 pm
While we are at it lets ban cars from National Parks. Better still ban cans period. They cause many more deaths daily than guns do. The idiocy of some people baffles me. Call 911 dial a prayer and a Police officer may get there in time to keep you from rotting and stinking too bad.
Report this comment
Jack Franklin
March 30th, 2009
1:04 pm
Stay out of parks & stay out of blogs & you’ll be OK.
Report this comment
JimInMT
March 30th, 2009
1:06 pm
Regarding, “well-regulated” in the Second Amendment, it refers to training and espris de corps (that’s French for something akin to coordinated in action, purpose, interchangeability of calibre of bullets so a dead soldiers lead projectiles can be fired from any other of the militia-persons’ weapons). One cannot have a militia full of morons who decide when or if to attack, or show up with hammers and sickles instead of the best fire power needed to take down tyrants attacking them… The latter “if” would probably be emanating from those who capitulate at the first sign of “trouble”, like those fools who give in to the gummint when it bellows at them from a “bully’s pulpit” — that would be “Obama, The Tele Prompter” Hollywood’s latest action hero — himself unarmed, but SURROUNDED by armed citizens, who by extension of the reasoning proffered by Nan and others, are no different than criminals — which may well be, but for entirely different reasons than they might suppose… the rationale for the Second Amendment.
Report this comment
Jonesy
March 30th, 2009
1:06 pm
Copyleft: since you are so “trained” and no doubt endlessly educated, I thought that you might know what “well regulated” meant in the Founders’ context. Back then “well regulated” meant proficiently trained, armed and well maintained – it did not pertain to the regulation of gunownership by the government.
I know that you probably just made an honest mistake right?
Report this comment
luangtom
March 30th, 2009
1:14 pm
Okay, history students, let’s look at what the 2nd Amendment says….militia is a term that meant the whole of the adult male population of the time to fight against a tyrannical government. The militia of the time did not refer to organized programs such as our current national guard or reserve. These programs did not exist. The arms referred to weapons equal to that of the foot-soldier used against the citizenry, such as muskets and side-arms, not cannons. This information was gleaned from listening to the presentations of Joseph Olson, Hamline University, MN, constitutional law professor….where did you other folks that speak against the gun-owner garner your information from?
Report this comment
luangtom
March 30th, 2009
1:18 pm
Oh, the side-arms carried by law enforcement are there for the protection of the officer wearing them. They are a reactionary force, not a protection unit. They respond to crime 90% of the time and prevent it 10% of time….I apologize for having to add this later rather than include it in my last blurb. So, to say that the Park Ranger or Police Officer is going to protect folks that are out and about is incorrect.
Report this comment
DDT
March 30th, 2009
1:33 pm
Wasn’t Timothy McVeigh a “law abiding” citizen until he blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City?
Report this comment
DDT
March 30th, 2009
1:34 pm
Too bad some of you 2nd Amendment experts don’t have the same regard for the 4th Amendment.
Report this comment
Doug
March 30th, 2009
1:36 pm
Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Report this comment
Copyleft
March 30th, 2009
1:37 pm
Read the cases, folks; the Supreme Court has come down on the side of constitutional regulations on gun ownership over and over.
U.S. v Miller; Robertson v City of Denver; U.S. v Oakes; U.S. v Johnson; Eckert v Pennsylvania; Burton v Sills; U.S. v Booker; Mullenix v BATF; U.S. v Walters; and so on….
Regulated ownership is Constitutional; you’re stuck with it, folks, so don’t bother trying to get all fundamentalist on this one.
Report this comment
Jimbo
March 30th, 2009
1:40 pm
For those of you who believe that the right to bear arms is a collective right (meaning you think it’s only for the militia and not individuals.. and have you thought about that? Is any other right in the Bill of Rights collective? No? Huh.. wonder how that works?.. oh wait.. it doesn’t.. yeesh) then I direct you to the Militia Act of 1903. Which says that all males age 17-45 are to be considered part of the “unorganized militia” so I guess the question is “why are we depriving 17-year-olds the right to bear arms?”
Report this comment
Mark
March 30th, 2009
1:42 pm
Copyleft, learn how to use a dictionary! “Regulated-To put or maintain in order;To adjust to a particular specification or requirement.” Therefore, a ‘well regulated Militia’ is one that is properly equipped and ready to respond to ‘provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.’ By the way, that’s also from the Constitution.
Report this comment
Copyleft
March 30th, 2009
1:46 pm
Mark: As I said, check with the Supreme Court. Regulated gun ownership has always been constitutional, and it still is today. HUNDREDS of case precedents back that up.
You may not like it, but you don’t get to make the call. Your preferred interpretation doesn’t matter; the Court’s does.
Report this comment
AtlantaConservative
March 30th, 2009
1:47 pm
It is interesting hearing some of the rhetoric by people such as Copyleft. I can sum this viewpoint up as being “pro rape.”
PRO RAPE – To be pro rape means you are telling your daughters, mothers, sisters, nieces, et al that you are making a collective decision to notify a person looking to commit a violent crime such as rape that the statistical chances of this person being armed for self defense are dramatically reduced, thus making the risk of committing such a crime also reduced.
Report this comment
Jonesy
March 30th, 2009
1:51 pm
DDT: Everyone should have the same regard for the ENTIRE Bill of Rights. That’s the problem. All the ammendments do not get equal importance, the 4th included.
Copyleft: yes regulation has been a part of guns for some time; but that was NOT the intent behind the 2nd ammendment. The fact that it exists has been a result the the slow but progressive encroachment of progressive and liberal idiologies into legislation, not because the Constitution says its OK. Its for “public safety” mentalitites and my favorite: “Do it for the children”.
Report this comment
AtlantaConservative
March 30th, 2009
2:02 pm
I think this whole matter can be summed up with the quote:
“If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.”
I like the idea of having a person looking to perpetrate a crime against another person looking to ask himself if the person he is looking to attack is carrying a firearm.
Where the law falls short typically is enforcement of illegal guns. The reason there is a surge in gun sales, beginner’s shooting class and GA carry permits is because people do not have the confidence in the system (system = laws + law enforcement) to guard them against the threat of violent crime.
Where is the community outrage that people have lost their feeling of security to the point they feel they need to pick up arms. There are alot of new gun owners and first time carry permit holders having to grapple this question. It is a scary thing to ask yourself, ‘I am willing to point this gun at an attacker, fight for my life, and put the rest of my life on the line through litigation an court proceedings because of my actions and the fact I wasn’t willing to trust a violent attacker to spare my life.”
Report this comment
EJ Moosa
March 30th, 2009
2:15 pm
For all of those that believe in using statistics for your safety, I have to laugh. Statistical averages did nothing to stop Jennifer Ewing from being attacked on the Silver Comet Trail.
What is the problem with letting individuals protect themselves? If you are not up to that responsibility, so be it. Some of us are up to it.
Roads Scholar–is that you Michael?
EJ
Report this comment
Stupidity
March 30th, 2009
2:16 pm
Copyleft – Since when did a criminal ever give a damn about gun laws? It’s not the honest citizen out hiking or camping with friends and family we need to worry about endangering someone because they HAVE A WEAPON FOR SAFETY…it is the “Couey-type” guys out there who are looking for their next UNARMED victim we should be worried about.
I guess this is another example of sitting around waiting for the Guberment to save us!
STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!
Report this comment
D.B. WILSON
March 30th, 2009
2:19 pm
I’M 51 YEARS OLD AND I’VE HAD A HAND GUN PERMIT SINCE I WAS 21 YEARS OLD! NEVER BEEN ARRESTED OR EVEN HAD A PARKING TICKET!MY TWO BROTHERS ALSO HAVE PISTOL PERMITS AND MY THREE SONS WILL BE GETTING THEIR’S SOON.WE WERE RAISED TO RESPECT AND PROPERLY USE FIRE ARMS! WHAT’S MORE WE WERE TAUGHT THE DIFFERNCE BETWEEN RIGHT AN WRONG,GOOD AND EVIL!MAYBE THAT’S THE REAL PROBLEM,PEOPLE DON’T KNOW OR DON’T CARE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE ANY MORE!SO I CARRY A HANDGUN WITH ME IF I GO TO THE STORE OR A WALK IN THE WOODS WITH MY WIFE! TO PROTECT US AGAINST MAN OR BEAST!IT’S BETTER TO HAVE A GUN AND NOT NEED IT, THAN NEED ONE AND NOT HAVE IT! THANK YOU!
Report this comment
Mark
March 30th, 2009
2:21 pm
I challenge anyone out there to find a case of a concealed carry permit holder engaging in a mass shooting. The nursing home in NC? The VT shooting? The 4 Oakland PD officers? All the way back to Lubby’s in Kileen! NONE! Some of them were even prohibited persons who STILL managed to acquire firearms DESPITE laws to the contrary. When are you people going to learn that laws DO NOT stop crime; competent, aggressive, and (when necessary) armed resistance is what STOPS crime. Less live criminals equals less crime! To quote Mr Burke, ‘All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.’
Report this comment
SaferThanYou
March 30th, 2009
2:31 pm
Since The U.S. Constitution and The Bill of Rights framed our inalienable rights and predates activist judges, my right to own a gun which can not be infringed, CAN NOT BE INFRINGED by Copyleft or any judge, bill or law.
I choose to protect my family with the gun I’ve never had to use to do so. But, crime still gets reported daily about murders, robberies, home invasions, etc. These crimes are not imaginary. They really happen and guns are often the leverage which allowed the criminal to win.
Any person who willingly allows their family to be subject to force does not deserve to be defended, even though our laws provide him or her with that right.
The thinning of the herd continues.
Maybe we gun owners should provide a hotline for the spouses and children of individuals like CopyLeft. It might be our moral responsibility to protect the defenseless.
Report this comment
Future Park Ranger
March 30th, 2009
2:42 pm
There was a comment made by Road Scholar that make said if there is a problem in a park that you should contact a park ranger and they can defuse the situation. There are a few points I would like to make to this comment. First there are not enough park rangers in most parks to be everywhere all the time. One big reason for this is that most parks whether they are state or federal are having to make cut backs on the number of rangers due to lack of funding. Not to mention the fact that it would be impossible to have a ranger covering every inch of a park to prevent a situation.
Another point I would like to make is the simple fact that a criminal is not going to wait around for a ranger to show up. If there is a criminal with a gun and he is willing to use it on another person, do you really think that the ciminal will allow the person being attacked to call for help??? Or with the person does manage to call for help do you really think that he ciminal is going to wait around to get caught. I do not think so.
So lets take a step back. Not enough protection due to not enough rangers due to not enough funding. A gun man is not going to wait for the ranger to eventually get there if somone manages to get a message to one. By this point in time the criminal is either long gone with all of your stuff and your sitting there going I wish i had a way to defend myself. Or you are on the ground dead because you didnt have a to protect yourself against the guy that had a gun and to ranger to be found to protect you.
Report this comment
Road Scholar
March 30th, 2009
2:52 pm
Well, you could dial 911 or the number posted at the entrance to the park or your entrance pass to the park! Duh! While I have to admit the criminal won’t wait for the Ranger, you could help them find the a$$holes by describing their appearance, license tag, etc. They could close the entrances/exits (ie lockdown) until found. Oh, I know it doesn’t provide you with the instant gratification of blowing someone away, but there are other means!Give them what they want, then aggressively contact the police.
Report this comment
Bodacious
March 30th, 2009
2:54 pm
Hey Lefty and Nan, Please submit your photos so that we,the lawful bearers of arms, can walk off and leave you at the mercy of the bad guys instead of saving your sorry asses
Report this comment
Road Scholar
March 30th, 2009
2:54 pm
PS Why aren’t we funding adequate security? Raise the price of admission.
Report this comment
centermass
March 30th, 2009
2:55 pm
Well guys here is the problem, as long as we have a Gov’t that is nothing but a bunch of bed wetting lib’s, we are always going to fight for our gun rights. Its the LIB’S way or no way as far as they are concerned and that is whats so disturbing about this country.
Report this comment
Road Scholar
March 30th, 2009
2:56 pm
Forgot to add: Cut taxes some more, that will pay for the security!
Report this comment
Sasquatch
March 30th, 2009
2:57 pm
1. When seconds count, the authorities are only minutes away.
2. I’d rather have the means to protect myself and my loved ones, and never need it, than not have the means and need it just one time.
I’m a former police officer, and I believe that honest citizens who are prepared and equipped to protect themselves, their loved ones, and each other if necessary are the best deterrent to our society continuing its headlong plunge into lawlessness.
Report this comment
Gandalf, the White!
March 30th, 2009
2:58 pm
I hope Copyleft tries to break into my home….
Report this comment
Redneck Convert
March 30th, 2009
2:59 pm
Well, I keep my anti-tank weapon and the two machine guns I use for hunting and self defense loaded all the time and I’ll keep them that way when I go to a park. People give you a wide berth when you stake out a camping site and they see you with a M-60 and a big long string of ammo for it. If one of the criminals ever come for me they’ll need a vacuum cleaner to pick up the remains. This is GA, not some yankee state.
Have a good day everybody.
Report this comment
Bodacious
March 30th, 2009
3:03 pm
Red, I’ll bring mine and we can camp next to each other and have covering fields of fire.
Report this comment
Bodacious
March 30th, 2009
3:10 pm
Bad Boys, Bad Boys, What ya gonna do, What ya gonna do, LEFTY when they come for YOU ?????
Report this comment
BUCK-50
March 30th, 2009
3:11 pm
WE NEED TO POST SIGNS AT OUR PARKS; WARNING ,ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK! THE BEARS DON’T NEED GUNS,ONLY THE CEIMINALS HAVE WEAPONS AND YOUR 911 DIAL A PRYER PROBABLY WON’T EVAN HAVE ANY BARS!!!
Report this comment
Smitch270
March 30th, 2009
3:24 pm
What a LINE Of CRAP!! It is my second ammendment right to bear arms and protect myslef and my family form any threat, person or animal. I have spent thousands of hours hunting fishing and enjoying the outdoors. I have had to use my firearm to protect myself from an unleashed violent dog. I have never shot,robbed or raped any person,or have broke any Laws you see I obey the laws and yes I carry and firearm were ever the law allows me to. It it my choise “Not to be a victim” so it is two shots center mass and one shot in the head!
For all the anti-gunners and Liberals it is my tax dollars spent on hunting and fishing permits, tags, and licenses pays for the upkeep of the National Forest and Parks.
It should be my right to carry a firearm just as the Laws of Arizona allow me to do so. Just remember if you come to me for help and I am unarmed because of this B.S. law…expect NO HELP form me! I don’t know if your intent is to do harm, so I will leave you and your family to your distress and I hope you the best!
Just remember Americans that have a sack will protect thier individual rights and will keep this country safe.
Report this comment
Californication
March 30th, 2009
3:28 pm
CopyLeft, you are very illiterate when it comes to guns. If you stop all law abiding citizens from carrying guns then only the bad guys would have them. Do the bad guys follow the law? I think not, so next time you are robbed at gun point at a place where nobody but the bad guys have them what are you going to do? Oh that’s right Obama will take care of you.
Report this comment
Georgia Gomer
March 30th, 2009
3:43 pm
Interesting that the example Barr gives is Hilton, whose crimes were in National Forests which comply with state carry rules, unlike National Parks. National Forest carry rules weren’t changed by Bush or Obama.
Report this comment
Californication
March 30th, 2009
3:46 pm
CopyLeft, why do you hate America? If you don’t believe in the constitution you are free to leave. In fact let me know where to send you your one way ticket to China, you seem like you would be a good fit there. Only the bad guys have guns there, and they are the government.
Report this comment
Paladin
March 30th, 2009
3:57 pm
I will carry a self-defense gun. Why? Because a cop is too heavy.
Report this comment
Melvin
March 30th, 2009
3:58 pm
Come on people it hasn’t anything to do with safety of non firearm owners. Simply put it has all to do with a activist/political wing exercising they’re ability to take something away from another group that does not chair they’re political ideology.
Look around us, we are surrounding by ankle biting activists who are against everything. They’re against cigarettes, fast food, hunting, fishing, walking on the beach, riding four wheelers, dirt bikes, riding horses, fireworks, motor vehicles, nuclear power plants, light bulbs, fur coats, and humans in general.
Why do we put up with their horse squeeze, like one putz said, “You have your guns we have our legislation to take your guns away from you.” Its bout time we put these little pesky cretins back under the rocks from whence the came.
Report this comment
MojaveGreen
March 30th, 2009
4:14 pm
I’m sorry she feels that way. It don’t have any impact on my life. Why? because the U.S. Supreme Courts (easily verified threw simple research) have ruled time and time again that law enforcement is not obligated to protect me. That that obligation for my own safety rests squarely on my shoulders and mine alone. As such I will do what ever I deem necessary to protect myself up to and including lethal force. Yes I will continue to carry my sheath knife or Colt Commander 45 acp. Yes it will be loaded with ball ammo or +P hydra-shock ammo. Why? because I refuse to be a victim of crime. Yes If some scum sucking pos criminal wants to try his or her luck, I will of course do what I need to do to ensure my safety and well being. Why? Because you law enforcement types, Despite the great jobs you do to try and make the population feel safe, No disrespect intended ,are incapable of protecting me when I might need it. I am forced to live in the real world not a make believe world that these brain dead politicians and judges seem to live in. As such I am forced to acknowledge reality for what it is and act accordingly, and until I see Park Rangers or Police Officers at each corner and at mid point location of a city block or at a tree or desert bush every 500 feet where you can respond faster and until the US Supreme Courts holds you responsible to the obligation of my safety. I will continue to do what I need to do to ensure my own safety as well as that of my family and close friends. If the government don’t like that way of thinking. The to bad so sad. You politicians need to go to the hospital and ask the surgeons to remove your heads from your butts. because it apparently is stuck so far up there that you can not get it out on your own. You also need to recognize that by handing out real punishments to those that choose to attack otherwise law abiding citizen is what works. Not doing things that make it easier for them to make more victims. But then you are on the same side as the criminals anyways. lol. If some people dont want to own fire arms. That is their right. They can rely on the government sponsored dial a prayer, better known as 911 if they choose. Maybe someone will get to them in time maybe not. That is their choice and I respect that. I however will not respect them imposing their beliefs down my throat. I will take my safety in my own hands. Now, what the hell does an environmental study have to do with personal self defense anyways?
Report this comment
Make Guns Illegal
March 30th, 2009
4:24 pm
I would love for guns to be illegal – a complete ban on every firearm of every caliber for every person. We all know that a ban like this would work because we can look at the “war” on drugs for our evidence. Cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. are all illegal and billions are spent to keep them out of our country. See how effective this has been? Did I just say that out loud? Crap, I’d better run down to the corner and get me a dime bag and smoke this one off.
Report this comment
David S
March 30th, 2009
4:24 pm
Some quotes from the people who drafted and approved the Bill of Rights:
“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])
“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
“the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone,” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in ‘An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
“…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?” (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))
“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)
“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
“The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)
for more: http://www.uhuh.com/guns/2ndquotes.htm
Report this comment
MojaveGreen
March 30th, 2009
4:27 pm
BTW I view guns like I would a first aid kit or a fire extinguisher. As I have all three in my house and in my Jeep.My feelings are this. I would rather have one and not need it. Than to need it and not have it…. It’s your life, protect it the way you want to. I will protect mine the way I want to..
Report this comment
David S
March 30th, 2009
4:27 pm
The second amendment has always been about giving the citizens the right to protect themselves against tyrranical government, not about hunting, target shooting, or even about crime prevention. But since you can’t pick and choose when the citizenry might need to exercise that right, you can’t deny it ever.
Report this comment
Daniel
March 30th, 2009
4:36 pm
I wonder how many of this anti gun people has a Home Security system, Locked their doors when they leave home and go to sleep or owns all kinds of insurance policy? If they are so confident that everything is Ok if only guns are taken away, they should take off the doors in their homes and stop using all this services that they use to protect their family and self otherwise they are just bunch of Hypocrites. Guns are the last line of defense for gun owner.
Report this comment
Bodacious
March 30th, 2009
4:36 pm
God I love it when you guys are right, MGI; hold on brother I’m right behind you!, got a light?
Report this comment
Eric
March 30th, 2009
4:37 pm
For those railing against liberals, slow yourself down there pardner. There is a diverse universe of liberals. I for one vote liberal but I own guns. The current stance by the Democratic party doesn’t make me happy, but I also know that they can only take it so far – political will against gun bans is too great in this country, thus it is very unlikely to happen. For a host of reasons (abortion rights, separation of church and state, select social programs), I find that the liberal/progressive approach is more appealing. For gun rights, the conservatives have the right idea. Just be careful about generalizations. There is very little that is black and white in this world. For intelligent folks, the existence of nuance can be easily appreciated.
Report this comment
BJ Peppers
March 30th, 2009
4:46 pm
It’s so sad that all these people are so anti gun! I think all the follow up to these wacko anti gunners has been addressed here. I just want to ask Road Scholar about his comment “Give them what they want, then aggressively contact the police.” Are you out of you mind? You trust some thug to POINT a gun at you while you give them all of your possessions more than you trust me (the smiling guy with my wife and kids) concealing a handgun for our safety? CRAZY! First of all what if I don’t want to give them what they want? What if I actually want to keep my stuff? Second, since guns are SO dangerous don’t you think a mistake would most likely be made in a situation where the creep is putting a gun in your face? Third, what if the a-hole decides that he doesn’t like the way you look and shoots you? Lastly, AGRESSIVELY CALL THE POLICE? That makes me laugh. He has a .45 in your face and when he robs you and runs away never to be caught you are going to AGRESSIVELY CALL THE POLICE? LOL! That’s a good one. You go ahead and do that so they can come quickly and photograph your body.
Report this comment
BJ Peppers
March 30th, 2009
4:54 pm
These must have been some CRAZY CRIMINALS because they think like me??
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
— Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796
The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
—James Madison
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
—Tenche Coxe,
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” —George Washington
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined.” —Patrick Henry
These People must have been WACKO right? What do side did they sound like they were on. Of course they were just criminals anyway because there’s not much difference…IDIOTS!
Report this comment
paul S&W
March 30th, 2009
5:05 pm
I wonder if copyleft, nan and others who feel the need to attack our right/duty to protect our loved ones with a conceled carry weapon while visiting our Nationl parks could pass a ccw bockground check? One should not overlook what there real motivation is.
Report this comment
Sam S.
March 30th, 2009
5:58 pm
Moron Mark, I’m sure that not all gunowners have concealed carry permits. Good try though at cherry picking a small portion of the populace to make your point. Now tell us wise guy. How many gun crimes and crimes of let’s say passion were committed by those gun owners. Plenty I bet. From seeing you in Badies blog the other day spouting off your your Aryan Army delusion/fantasy, you are the last person that needs a gun. You’re dumber than a box of rocks.
Report this comment
Sam S.
March 30th, 2009
6:03 pm
Enter your comments here
Report this comment
AA
March 30th, 2009
6:06 pm
Drink a beer. Bust a few caps. Drink another beer, blast away some more. Drink another beer, belch, fire a few more rounds. Is that all you Barney Fifes think about. I know it’s your entire life, but damn…..
Report this comment
Kim
March 30th, 2009
6:26 pm
Another ridiculous statistic trotted out for idiots’ consumption: gun owners are (your number) as likely to injure or kill themselves than those who do not have a firearm in the home. So, does owning a gun make you a danger to yourself OR do YOU make owning a gun a dangerous thing?
Does owning more than one or two guns make you more dangerous than someone owning one gun? What about REAL gun-nuts like ME, who own 25, thirty (Lord help me, I’ve lost count). This logic reminds me of Dr. Suess’s ‘Green Eggs & Ham’. Every silly scenario presented by Sam is just as laughable as the gun control freaks’ imaginations: More guns, less guns, no guns, pop-guns!
Report this comment
JenNeva
March 30th, 2009
6:33 pm
David, you must be a real wimp, and I take offense to your statement that only ‘testosterone-laden males’ have any interest in guns or defending themselves/families/other innocent people. For your information, I am a woman, a USAF veteran, who legally carries a gun and values her 2nd ammendment rights to do so, and I know alot of other women who either have guns and/or carry them for protection. My baby sister just got HER ccw. And, if you have a clue what is going on right now, you would know that guns and ammo retailers are seeing an influx of WOMEN buying guns and ammo, even ‘old ladies’. So take your 1950’s views and shove ‘em, you’re obviously a male chauvinist pig. Guys like you make me sick.
Report this comment
JenNeva
March 30th, 2009
6:38 pm
Georgia Redneck, honey, I hate to tell you, but it’s not just rednecks that own guns anymore dear. You must have had a very misinformed upbringing, and obviously your parents, probably your father, set a great example for you, since you grew up to be a prejudicial, idiotic bigot of a person.
Report this comment
ConservativeAnchor
March 30th, 2009
6:42 pm
Just get a subcompact .40 S&W.
Then blame someone else and hide the gun.
I still don’t like Bob “Northern Arc” Barr.
Report this comment
Second Amendment
March 31st, 2009
11:05 am
First lets put everything into perspective. Liberalism is a mental disorder. Okay, can’t hunt in national parks because of that bad old lead ammo. Well, the only people I heard of that ate lead paint were usually low IQ inner city YUFFs. In my neighborhood we typically don’t eat lead paint atleat not without barbecue sauce. Okay, lead is to be made illegal just as CO2 is to be. Okay, lets take lead out of the nuclear reactors that are located near these urban welfare centers. CO2 is used by plants to convert to oxygen. Last time I looked Oxygen is a good thing. Obvious not enough oxygen got to the brains of Hillary and Kerry. Okay Hillary and Kerry let’s look at their life experience. Hillary dodge sniper fire in Bosnia, she also avidly hunted ducks with her grandfather. Kerry came to OHIO and baited geese and supposedly shot one. Kerry also went up the Makong delta into cambodia. Okay, to much lead in their food atleast based on their thought. Guns should be allowed in parks because people hunt and their are bears, and actually there are brazen homosexuals who try to assault innocent park dwellers. Well liberalism is a mental disease right Hillary and Kerry.
Report this comment
Secondamender
March 31st, 2009
12:00 pm
It is so easy to tell Anti rights people, They all state lies and mistruths instead of facts because they can not do research on their own. They follow like sheep when they are themselves elitists and hypocrytes who think they are better than the rest of society.
Copyleft & Nan for example have no facts just insinuations. When the briliant men who founded the Constitution and this great country had more brains in their small toe than Copyleft or Nan have combined.
At the time the Bill Of Rights was written the meaning of (Regulated) meant supplied or stocked. Theirfore (A well supplied militia)was the intent of the time. Our society is going to hell because of the likes of Copyleft and Nan for they are so dependant on government they would love Chavez or Hitler.
Report this comment
Copyleft
March 31st, 2009
12:39 pm
Let’s get everything into perspective.
First of all: Regulation of gun ownership IS constitutional</I, and there’s not a dang thing you can do about it. So quit whining about some insane fringe, absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and accept what it ACTUALLY means here in the real world: regulation means regulation, period.
Second: Facts include things like ALL the Supreme Court cases I’ve cited on this very point, as well as hundreds more that address this same issue. Regulation of gun ownership was, is, and always will be Constitutional barring a new amendment.
You really can’t do anything about it, gun nuts. Your rights DO have limits, and those limits DO stand up in court. Quit acting like spoiled babies and start looking for ways to make your case a bit better.
Our society is doing just fine, thank you, and getting better the more often we can put liberal officials in office to move us forward, rather than back to the jungle (or bunker, in your case).
Have a great day! I know I will (grin).
Report this comment
Copyleft
March 31st, 2009
12:40 pm
Hmmm… forgot to close the bracket. Oh well.
Report this comment
Dave R
March 31st, 2009
12:54 pm
The LAST thing you need to believe is a liberal telling you what the Framers of the Constitution meant.
Report this comment
Mark
March 31st, 2009
2:15 pm
Sam S. Sense you can’t refute my argument you resort to name calling? I have no idea what ‘Badies blog’ is and I assure I am NOT an Aryan! My point was that everyone who is against this rule seems to think it would allow just ANYONE to carry a concealed weapon; it applies ONLY to those who have passed the requirements to be granted a carry permit. As a subset of ‘gun owners,’ concealed carry licsencees are WAY more law abiding than just about any other group of people, including law enforcement officers! Look up any States’ statistics on revocations and you’ll see something on the order of 0.05 to 0.08% of CHLs granted are revolked for any sort of criminal misbehavior. For your information, the process to receive a permit includes an FBI level background check, training by a certified instructor, authorized examination of your medical history for any mental health, alcohol or drug addiction issues, and any other various state requirements.
Road Scholar, you said “Well, you could dial 911 or the number posted at the entrance to the park or your entrance pass to the park!” Excuse me, but there are LARGE sections of National Parks with absolutely NO cell phone coverage. Also, if it took you several hours to get from the park entrance to where you are, then it will take a Park Ranger about that same ammount of time to find you!
Report this comment
Copyleft
March 31st, 2009
2:56 pm
Dave R: Sorry, you still flunk Constitutional law. You see, they don’t need to take “a liberal’s word” for what the Constitution means.
What they have to take is what the Supreme Court says it means.
Report this comment
Dave R
March 31st, 2009
4:10 pm
Yes, copylefty, and that can change with a single ruling. When, and if, that happens, there will be a new precedent set.
The problem, as I have articulated for you loser lefty’s over on Bookman’s blog, is that you and your Socialist buddies have corrupted the Constitution over the years with liberal loopholes and torturous interpretations to where the ORIGINAL INTENT has been DEFILED by the law.
We talk raw, plain-spoken Constitution here, son, not your ba$tardized version of the Constitution through the eyes of liberal judges. Take your lack of law degree elsewhere.
Report this comment
Barry Soetoro
March 31st, 2009
4:33 pm
The judge overturned it because the Bush Administration didn’t do an assessment? These are the same anti-gun people that want to pass rediculous gun control laws without doing assessments. But now since it is pro-gun now they want an assessment? These liberals don’t assess their useless anti-gun laws because they know that if they did that America would see that they are counter-productive to making Americans more safe. Oh and NAN and COPYLEFT and the rest of that ilk, to help you out with your argument: only paranoid people need to own guns. The muggers, robbers, rapists and murderers don’t own guns and don’t carry guns because they are not allowed to by law, and we all know how well criminals obey the law. Guns pull their own triggers, cars cause accidents and kill people, pencils are the cause of spelling errors not the people using them. So as long as we throw logic and common sense out the window we can understand people like NAN, COPYLEFT, and the rest of the anti-gun crowd. There is a difference between somebody who is armed that is a criminal, and someone who is armed legally, i.e. LAW ABIDING citizens. You anti-gun ilk need to stop confusing us LAW ABIDING citizens with the criminals.
Report this comment
Barry Soetoro
March 31st, 2009
4:43 pm
The judge overturned it because the Bush Administration didn’t do an assessment? These are the same anti-gun people that want to pass rediculous gun control laws without doing assessments. But now since it is pro-gun now they want an assessment? These liberals don’t assess their useless anti-gun laws because they know that if they did that America would see that they are counter-productive to making Americans more safe. Oh and NAN and COPYLEFT and the rest of that ilk, to help you out with your argument: only paranoid people need to own guns. The muggers, robbers, rapists and murderers don’t own guns and don’t carry guns because they are not allowed to by law, and we all know how well criminals obey the law. Guns pull their own triggers, cars cause accidents and kill people, pencils are the cause of spelling errors not the people using them. So as long as we throw logic and common sense out the window we can understand people like NAN, COPYLEFT, and the rest of the anti-gun crowd. There is a difference between somebody who is armed that is a criminal, and someone who is armed legally, i.e. LAW ABIDING citizens. You anti-gunners need to stop confusing us LAW ABIDING citizens with the criminals.
Report this comment
Redneck Convert
April 1st, 2009
7:42 am
Well, if these weenies want my anti-tank weapon and the two machine guns I use for hunting and self defense they can come up here to Simpsons Trailer Park and try and take them. I even plan to be buried with them–just in case things go wrong on the other side.
Have a good day everybody.
Report this comment
MChammer
April 1st, 2009
8:09 am
After witnessing a serious road rage incident yesterday at the I-75/Delk Rd. exit I can see both sides of this issue. You have a guy yelling and screaming at another driver and waving a gun at him while driving like a total fool, endangering everyone around him and you have to think that this nutcase definately shouldn’t possess a gun. On the other hand you think that because of unstable people like him everyone else needs one to defend against him. But I guess bottom line was yesterday, had two candidates for the psycho ward been raging with each other and both had guns, what would have happened then? Guys like that make a strong case for getting guns out of those hands whether it is his right or not to possess it. Maybe guns should be handle like driver’s licenses (he shouldn’t have one of those either the way he was behaving with that 3500lb deadly weapon).
Report this comment
Road Scholar
April 1st, 2009
8:22 am
Hey MChammer: the person being threatened could leave, thus avaoiding any confrontation and eliminating the likelyhood of something going wrong! The guy waving the gun obviously has a problem.
Report this comment
Dave Blackmon
April 1st, 2009
10:07 am
This makes perfect sense, the drug lords have a multi-billion dollar business to protect so they buy assault weapons from California (which has had an assault weapons ban for twenty years), which aren’t really assault weapons. Probably a lack of business education, they are unable to identify suppliers of true assualt weapons. There is also the US government available to augment the supply of military grade materials, ostensibly to Mexican government, that so easily appears in criminal hands.
Report this comment
DDS -- NRA Life Member
April 1st, 2009
10:14 am
The nutjobs of various persuasions have been with us since the dawn of time. The question therefore becomes: how much of our rights do you want us to give up because of their actions?
Report this comment
Davo
April 1st, 2009
10:23 am
Sure guns are bad…but what about kitchen knives? There’s people running around cutting their sisters heads off with kitchen knives! For the love of God, will the govt do nothing to address this threat?
Report this comment
Darren B
April 1st, 2009
10:24 am
Another way they may push gun control is through some type of economic reform. The federal government recently used the bailout measure as a lever to oust the CEO of GM. The Treasury wants authority to more closely regulate private business. I can see them using that as an excuse to regulate the firearms industry. It would start small, but expand over time until the goal is achieved. There doesn’t seem to be anything the current administration won’t attempt.
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 1st, 2009
10:30 am
The guy waving the gun in the road rage incident is in violation of existing laws, report him to the police. If you didn’t, then you’re part of the problem. It’s as easy as calling 911 and saying “Hey, there’s a guy at waving a gun threateningly at another motorist, please send a cop.” You should also do this for accidents and other problems you see. We can work within the framework of laws we have without resorting to more onerous legislation. I fail to see how passing more legislation will improve things considering the enforcement failures that happen now. After all, the VT shooter should never have been able to purchase a firearm legally.. except the system failed. I still think guns in this country are pointlessly over-hyped. Use that money to provide cancer treatment, mental healthcare, or low cost gymnasiums if you actually want to save the most lives. Targeting guns is irrational and ineffective.
Report this comment
Rich
April 1st, 2009
10:53 am
Went to many gun shows recently and was looking to buy assaut weapons, granades, rockest & rocket launchers just like the pukes in Washington District of Corruption says we have. Guess what, its all a pack of lies there were no such weapons here. Just another Obamanation plan of deception. I will give up my guns if Obama makes his body guards give up his.
Report this comment
Eleanor Rigby
April 1st, 2009
11:31 am
For all of you who want more gun control because of all the gun violence, the genie is out of the bottle. All of the criminals have firearms and are not afraid to use them. Give the law-abiding citizen the ability to protect himself. If you think stricter gun laws will prevent crime, you are a fool. Davo makes a very good point.
Report this comment
Lee
April 1st, 2009
11:44 am
A few observations:
The government still hasn’t learned it’s lesson about banning anything. All you do is create a black market for the item in question. Supply and demand – economics 101. After all, prohibition and the “war on drugs” has worked so well.
The same fellows who are savvy enough to bring illegal drugs into this country by the tractor-trailer load probably won’t have any problem obtaining contraband weapons.
The biggest manufacturer of the AK style “assault weapon” is China. Brazil also has a pretty healthy weapons manufacturing base. Let’s see, many of the drug cartels are located where??? That’s right, South America. Don’t have to be a Rhodes Scholar to draw a line between those two peices of the puzzle.
What has happened in Great Britain since they outlawed many types of firearms? Bueller? Ferris Bueller??
Times like this are when we really miss Bob Barr in Washington….
Report this comment
Gregg
April 1st, 2009
12:00 pm
I agree with some the things the government is trying to do. You say banning something doesn’t work, yet you are for the drug war, police soberity check points. You say that you don’t want those pesky regulations to dictate how you purchase your guns. Those pesky laws made a black market sure but it also made it harsher for those selling guns on the black market. These are the same policies that make you do a background check before you buy a gun. You knock a gun manufacturers for supporting training and safety locks for their weapons but yet applaud auto industry for supporting teenagers driving training programs. Which do you want the ability to go into any gun store and purchase any type of weapon just because you an American. It amazes me that we are in the same state where they require you to prove citenzenship in order to vote you yahoos don’t want no type of hinderance on your guns. Assinine just assinine.
Report this comment
Gregg
April 1st, 2009
12:01 pm
Road Scholar what about the nut the went into the nursing home shooting everyone. I suppose they could leave to huh?
Report this comment
Guns That Obama Says Can Be Bought In A Store - Page 5
April 1st, 2009
12:03 pm
[...] Here’s a recent very well written article on how the anti’s plan on using the Mexican drug problem, and other tactics, to push their agenda. Gun-control crowd pushes radical goal | The Barr Code [...]
Report this comment
ConservativeAnchor
April 1st, 2009
12:05 pm
The 2nd Amendment was put created to protect the citizenry from tyranny by a government gone out of control. The Founding Fathers knew there was a potential that the government would overstep the bounds of the Constitution and infringe upon the citizens rights.
The guns are to protect you from the Liberals and especially Obozo.
Report this comment
MDinGA
April 1st, 2009
12:34 pm
Just a reminder….Hitler pushed gun control through in the 30’s, and look what happened after the German people were disarmed.
Report this comment
Steve
April 1st, 2009
12:38 pm
Jimbo seemed to give the correct solution. A driver on the road should have called 911 and reported the incident. Give them the guys license plate number. If multiple drivers are involved, give info on each car. For every driver you see waving that gun, there are many more in their car that carry one but don’t pull it out due to road rage. No need to go overboard and stop everyone from carrying one.
Would you ban all parents from their children’s sporting events just because a few parents that go start fights?
Report this comment
A dad
April 1st, 2009
12:41 pm
it never ceases to amaze me that liberals want to take guns away from the law-abiding citzens who lawfully purchase them in the first place. Why they refuse to acknowledge that the criminals whose gun-related violence they descry don’t purchase them legally, therefore gun control laws would be of no use. And it’s not like the US is the only company that makes guns. If criminals can’t get US-made fireamrs, they buy russian, german, etc. made and the result will still be the same. The criminals will have gins, and the general populace will be defenseless. I wonder if anyone will cite kellerman’s study on gun violence. I’m waiting….
Report this comment
EJ Moosa
April 1st, 2009
12:52 pm
In Germany, they rounded up the guns. If you had one, they shot you on sight. Not sure if we should expect anything different here when the orders to confiscate are issued.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article2740.html
Here is a column I wrote about Just One Gun over a year ago. Nothing has changed but the location of the assault and the inability for anyone to defend themselves. Why is this such a hard lesson for liberals to grasp?
Report this comment
Gerald Barber
April 1st, 2009
1:07 pm
What you have to understand is GUNS dont kill people people kill people,you take away the gun from citizens and you have every bad guy in town taking what he wants when he want it ,and you cant stop him as far as the nursing home it was a gun free zone dont figure that some one would go there now would it ? wake up AMERICA the government is against you and there going after your rights one at a time.
Report this comment
"Charles", The Original
April 1st, 2009
1:11 pm
Gun-control crowd pushes radical goal
6:00 am April 1, 2009, by Bob Barr
As the little girl in the 1980s flick, “Poltergeist,” said, “They’re back.” Now, after consciously maintaining a low profile the last two years, even though the Democratic Party maintained a majority in both houses of the Congress, the gun-control crowd is stirring. Yes, they’re back. And they’re feeling their oats…
Bob Barr can’t trick me. It’s April 1st. April fool everybody. He almost got me too. Now let’s get back to the real world. The gun-control crowd knows that Americans, enlistment and commissioned officers are going to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. So the gun-control crowd can take our guns if they can pry them from our cold dead hands.
Report this comment
sully
April 1st, 2009
1:13 pm
No body’s gonna take my guns away from me. I bought them legally and until congress made some change in the constitution about my right to bear arms I will and continue to do so.
Report this comment
Songbird
April 1st, 2009
1:26 pm
I know plenty of unstable people who bought guns legally. At a recent visit to a friend, her son, who was in Afganistan and clearly has PTSD (he’s taking a lot of pain killers as well), was walking around with a handgun stuffed in the back of his pants. He has a lot of anger issues and is just the type of person who should not be walking around with a gun on him. He has a permit though. This is precisely the issue with guns in this country. The laws we have don’t keep guns out of the hands of people who should not be able to purchase them legally. I know you can’t keep someone from buying one illegally, but we really need to do a better job of not selling them and issuing permits for concealed carry to people who are unstable.
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 1st, 2009
1:26 pm
Aw look, that’s adorable, Gregg made a straw man!
Gregg, I’m actually against the war on drugs; just like I would’ve been against prohibition; just like I’m against measures that limit the civil rights of certain groups. I believe in reasonable controls and legislation on firearms and I’m a big proponent of the background check and programs like the gun coupon system in North Carolina. The problem is that the government doesn’t understand how to enact effectively legislation and when they luck into it they usually turn it into a revenue draw (like the gun coupon system in NC). The people who want strict gun control have an agenda based on either a poor understanding of statistics or an irrational fear of an inanimate object due to sheer ignorance. The assault weapon ban was useless. The Brady Bill gave us background checks, fine. The ammo serialization legislation that has materialized recently is poorly thought out and over complicated and the the Blair Holt bill is onerous and provides no real improvement over the system already in place. The only real benefit is that they make people feel better. Positive feelings don’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals. My guns live in a safe that weighs almost 1,000 pounds, a little more substantial than your trigger locks. So, while I’m sure it’s easier to build your straw man and roll with it, the reality is a lot more complicated.
Also, on the subject of assault weapons. I get asked from time to time why I “need” a military rifle. Let me lay it out for you. I live in a first world industrialized society. I drive a decent car, I live in a nice place, and I shop at pretty good stores. All of my “needs” are taken care of by my decent salary. The rest of my income that isn’t devoted to needs is devoted to something called “wants.” Wants are things I don’t need but I like to have. If you don’t live in a agrarian subsistence based culture you can buy wants. I want assault weapons and I can afford to have them, so I do. Shooting is my hobby and a lot of them have historical significance and I collect them. I’m not shooting them at you so it’s none of your business. You can’t drive a BMW, go to grad school, or live in a five bedroom house and then ask me about MY needs. I don’t really need anything but food, water, and shelter, neither do you.
Report this comment
Gregg
April 1st, 2009
1:28 pm
It amazes me how your twisted minds work. they don’t want to ake guns away oh ye of little knowledge. the guns you have they do not want. They want to make sure those who get the go through the right process to get them. What kind of hunting can you do with an assualt rifle. What that what you need to kill a little frighten deer? There should be laws that makes it difficult to get a gun and stricter laws to punish those that sell them on the black market. If I brought a gun and sold it to someone who could not legally purchase one, if he should use that in a crime I should be charged as an accessory. What about the teen who stole 4 of his fathers gun while he was out of town and they had to shut down the school? What if your kids were in that school or Columbine, or the school in Arkansas. Wake up it’s not about taking guns away. The gun control group are the one that pushed for tougher laws for crimes committed with a firearm. Where were y’all hunting something that can’t hunt you back?
Report this comment
Gregg
April 1st, 2009
1:40 pm
Jimbo all of that sounds nice but you are correct as I do not live in a 5-bedroom home but a 6 in Larwenceville (almost Loganville) actually. I have my Masters’ from FIU (Florida International University). I probably have owned more weapons and fired more than you have (an assumption on my part due to I spent 10 years in the military). I have shot every thing from a grease gum to a 50 call. My argument is not to take away guns as you may propose however I understand the ease at which they are made available in certain communities. I have three kids and when they go to school I worry about some maniac mad for some unknown reason. I own my own business (which is for the most part cash based) so I am a potential target. I have a 38 in my business, a 9 in my car and yet I still worry ass to which nut wants me to make his day. Many people who carry guns talk bold and I will give them that because carrying gives one s sense of power. However until you have taken a life (not of an animal) you really have no clue. The 2nd ammendment was written in a different time and era, when we were called terrorist by England. I love what it stands for and was willing to die to protect all they stood for, however that does not mean we should not have control over something like just because I like it.
Report this comment
A dad
April 1st, 2009
1:40 pm
Gregg – obviously you are unware that there are already laws o nthe books dealing with the exact scenarios you laid out (other than the anti-hunting comment, can’t help you there PETA boy). Did you follow NYC’s lawsuits agains the gun dealers from the South re straw purchases. Fill out paperwork, wiating period, etc. But you expect perfect rules and regs in an imperfect world. Do guns do good in the hands of “normal” folk. Look at the statistics in places like Kennesaw were home-gun ownership was mandatory. What happened to the crime rate? You want to sensationalize random, sporadic incidents like the guys with road rage, of the PTSD case. balance those agains the millions of law-abiding gu owners who don’t have road rage or PTSD. How does banning guns from a national park (which is our land after all) equate to tougher laws for crimes committed with a gun. Every wonder whether the outcome of that vagrant murdering the woman on the Silver Comet Trial might have been different if she were armed? Course not. Liberals never rationalize, and if you want to frustrate a liberal, just present the facts that their emotional outlook on everything can’t process. Face facts, the anti-gun crown wants to destroy the 2d Amendment, take guns away from the law abiding citizenry, and that’s the truth. What’s next dude. The tired old argument about cars killing people so ban cars. If you can’t see what the real agenda is I fell sorry for you, cause one day you;re going to wake up and your beloved elected “leaders” will have enacted a law that effects you, but there won’t be anyone left to hear your outrage.
Report this comment
Gregg
April 1st, 2009
1:42 pm
Thank you Songbird! I thought i was the only one that understood what this means. This is just common sense if you got them fine, but if your kids take them to school then you should be charged at least for negligence.
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 1st, 2009
1:42 pm
Oh Gregg, now Ad hominem?
They do want the guns I have. Cities like Washington DC, Chicago, and San Francisco have made that perfectly clear.
I don’t know anyone who uses an assault rifle to hunt. It’s a poor hunting weapon, we use them for target practice. We have deer rifles for hunting deer, oh but a deer rifle does pretty well since that’s what the guy used to shoot up that nursing home and one played a prominent role in the UT Austin shooting of 1966. Then, my legal genius, you talk about how laws should be stricter! Well it’s already a felony to use a gun in a crime and a felony to furnish a gun to a felon. It’s also a felony to possess a gun illegally. Should we kill them? What is your solution? The problem is with enforcement, not punishment. What about the teen that stole four guns? That was theft, the kid was a criminal, stealing is what criminals do. I would prefer that people keep all their guns in a safe that a kid can’t access, but people do and frankly there are plenty of children in this country that have a gun in their closet that don’t do anything of the sort. If one person does a thing should punish everyone who has the potential to do the same? NO. Let’s talk about school shootings. More people will die this week in car accidents than have been killed in these infamous school shootings since 1966 (CDC mortality statistics and a CNN article on infamous school shootings). Oh, except Chicago (which has broad bans on firearms) which had 100 kids die in shootings at public schools last year (according to the Chicago Tribune). How can you make something more strict than a total ban? Why have murders in DC never dropped below the 1976 level when they instituted their handgun ban? Banning handguns makes it pretty hard for anyone to get them and yet their murders stayed above the 1976 level despite a decline the city’s population (statistics from the CDC and Metropolitan DC police).
Report this comment
Gregg
April 1st, 2009
1:48 pm
A dad my point is that even without training if she was armed she would have been in more danger. Many of you have and used guns for years however I probably can take it away from you and use it on you if you give me the slightest opening. Being armed does not equate being safe. Being armed may make you feel safe but are you really safe. If you are so safe why do you lock your doors at night, you are armed, they may be armed but you have the advantage. You know the terrian far better than they do. leave them open and leave anote welcoming them. Again lets have this issue after you have used it and it takes you years not weeks or months to learn to cope with the act you committed. Then and then we can really blog abd talk about this.
Do you know what the leading reason is PTSD is? It’s not medication or something in the air, it is people haunting you everyday of your waking life. We don’t even daydream for the fear they are there too.
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 1st, 2009
1:50 pm
In my opinion that makes you worse than me Gregg. Assault weapons are used in about 2% of all gun crimes.. handguns are in the high 70’s so you pose a greater threat to society than I do. Your outrage is fine, but your understanding of the risk guns pose is flawed. Your kids are more likely to be killed in an alcohol related accident (or any accident really) than by a gun.
Guns are involved in homicides (including the cops) about 12 or 14,000 times in a year.. out of 300 million people or an average 2.2 million deaths. You could get into age and racial demographics and it becomes a lot more likely, but it doesn’t sound like your kids are in a bad neighborhood or going to risky school so they’re probably less likely than most to die from a gun related incident. Did you know that guns kill about 1,600 people a year in accidents? Out of over 100,000 accidental deaths a year.. More people drown.
I’m not saying your wrong, I’m just saying with your specific concerns you should probably find another soap box.
Report this comment
Joe
April 1st, 2009
1:56 pm
First of all, the reducio ad Hitlerum is evidence that you know that your argument is weak.
I have no problem with enforcing current gun laws and requiring a background check prior to the purchase of a gun. I also have no problem with an assault weapon ban.
And Gregg is correct about safety: having a gun does NOT make you more safe. If you have a concealed weapon and someone pulls a gun on you, your gun isn’t doing you any good, for example.
Anyway, if we worked on other policies in this country, then we won’t feel the need to have guns for “protection”.
Report this comment
Gregg
April 1st, 2009
2:00 pm
Jimbo the point is not the “school shootings” as much as they are who is doing the shooting. I remember running around shooting people as a kid and somehow they all survived. Of course I had a toy gun then, but I did not realize the totality of the act until later in life Jimbo. Again I am not attacking gun ownership and you are very wrong if that is what you are getting. We have to have laws. I love to speed and have a car that can probably get close to 150 like it was nothing but for driver’s education and the law I do not. Will it work all of the time, I think there are only a very few things in life that works all the time.
Oh Jimbo, Jimbo, Jimbo have you never modified a AR-15 it is nothing but a M-16 in diguise. and you comment about them being terrible hunting weapons I tend to disagree with you. If they were why would they be used when the stakes are the highest. Just take a breath, aim, and touch the trigger as though you are not trying to discard your round peep up just in time to watch the explosion.
Report this comment
Gregg
April 1st, 2009
2:07 pm
Jimbo in what locatin was Columbine, the school yard in Arkansas, or VT for that matter. You make 2.2 million deaths seem like nothing. As though that is a number to thumb your nose at. Tell me what if someone you loved was in that 2.2 million, then it wouldn’t be just a number anymore right. Then something needs to been done about crime right? My point is I don’t want to wait until it affects me to take action.
Joe, makes the most vaild point, I have seem dead men with guns in their hands Including and not limited to police officers. It seems pro-gun people would like to have the old west back complete with showdowns at high noon!
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 1st, 2009
2:15 pm
Gregg, I’m not going to talk to you about the superiority of one weapon over another or why militaries use the weapons they use or what makes a weapons superior to another. I don’t have that kind of time. I have an AR15, I’m intimately familiar with the M16A2 and I know why they’re different from an AR10, an HK416, or an AK47. I know I CAN take a deer with one and why they’re better than a Remington 700 chambered in .270 Winchester (my deer cartridge of choice) for some combat applications.
Also, you’re supporting my argument Gregg. You CAN have a car that goes 150mph. No one is trying to ban them. Some people WILL go 150mph and they will risk the consequences. I’d much rather have that than a law that we may have no sports cars. I agree with the concept of training and the requirement to train, it’s one of the beefs I have with the Georgia CCW requirements we have now. Train train train the best you can as often as you can. Will it be enough? Not every time, even the best fail sometime, but it’s better than having nothing at all. You brought up school shootings and a maniac in your kids’ school, I was merely pointing out how that’s not a very high risk compared to everything else.
Also, why do I lock my doors if I have guns? Defense in depth! A high wall doesn’t work without a strong gate.
Also this argument isn’t necessarily about defense as much as it’s about ownership. I know plenty of people who have a lot of guns and no intention of every carrying one for protection. It’s just not their thing. Further, a gun is a burden, not an object of power. Anyone who tells you different doesn’t know what they’re in for.
Report this comment
EJ Moosa
April 1st, 2009
2:15 pm
Gregg,
How could Jennifer Ewing have been in “more danger”? She was murdered.
And if I perceive someone as a threat, they will not get close enough to disarm me. A threat will be dealt with before they get that close.
If enough of us are out there, those they prey upon us will not know which of us are armed and which are not, and that will act as a deterrent to some of them. For the rest, they run the risk of being DRT.
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 1st, 2009
2:27 pm
Gregg, life is risk, you’re just playing the numbers. 2.2 million is nothing compared to the 305 million people who will live or the 4 million people born in a year. Death is a natural state and we all must die. You assume far too much. I’ve buried a lot of my family and a number of friends over the years and it started when I was six. I’ve lost people to unnatural causes and disease and more than a few I lost well before their time. Losing someone to violence or similar circumstances I blame the perpetrator and not their tools.
As for the wild west comment, there are hundreds of thousands of people in Georgia alone with CCWs. There are 40-60 million households with firearms. I think you’re offbase when you assume that A: I’m off base by defending this right. or B: that I defend my other rights just as ferociously. You seems to revel in assumptions, stereotypes, and straw men.. but you have no real point. You’re mad and you want someone to do something about it and that may as well be the government.
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 1st, 2009
2:29 pm
don’t defend*
40-60million households nationally, not in Georgia.. that would be horrible having 60 million people in one state.
Report this comment
Gregg
April 1st, 2009
2:33 pm
EJ Moosa one question have you ever discharged a weapon at anybody?
Jim, I understand the risk and chances. I also know the plane crashes happen less the automobile crashes but that doesn’t stop me from wondering if this is the one. I am glad the NTSB has so many regulation and mandates in place to make the air a safer place, do you agree Jimbo?
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 1st, 2009
2:35 pm
And yet when a plane crashes it was usually in violation of those regulations.. do we need more regulations? Or should we better enforce the ones we have?
Report this comment
Gregg
April 1st, 2009
2:36 pm
Jimbo, you wrote:
You’re mad and you want someone to do something about it and that may as well be the government.
Who better whether it is the local, state or federal government I pay my taxes to. Can I rely on you Jimbo.
Report this comment
Gregg
April 1st, 2009
2:40 pm
oh Jimbo I am not mad, we learn how to control that simple thing and use it to our advantage. Anger is for cowards to show they may do something a wasted energy if you ask me.
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 1st, 2009
2:48 pm
Gregg, I’m a hell of a lot more reliable than they are.
I’ll respect your rights a lot more diligently too.
Report this comment
Gregg
April 1st, 2009
2:53 pm
Jimbo I will see you later my boss (wife) is making me go pick up supplies and the kids. The life of a concerned father.
Enjoyed you feedback though Jim and I actually had to agree with some of your arguments.
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 1st, 2009
2:58 pm
It’s cool Gregg, part of the beauty of this nation is that we should be able to disagree. I only have a problem when someone wants to legislate their beliefs without clear benefit to the general populace or to fix something that isn’t necessarily broken.
Good luck with the wife and have a good one.
Report this comment
Barry
April 1st, 2009
3:09 pm
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the idiot we have in office acting as President are trying to form a Dictatorship in America! They are trying to run banks and the car industry and any other company that is stupid enough to fall victim by taking the bailout money! I guess the idiots in Washington will start taking knives, chainsaws, baseball bats and hockey sticks next. Quite simply, if you want to kill someone an idiot can find a way! Government is getting too big and getting involved in citizens lives way too much. I just can’t believe there are enough idiots to keep voting for Pelosi, Reid, Franks, Dodd but wait I guess that’s how Obama got elected!
One
Big
A**
Mistake
America
Report this comment
EJ Moosa
April 1st, 2009
3:14 pm
Gregg,
No I haven’t. But I have had training and I am prepared to if warranted.
I have, however, had a gun drawn and aimed at me by a thug. One can choose to ignore the risks and accept the consequences. Or one can choose to be prepared and do what is necessary should the need ever arise. The choice is yours. But do not make the choice for me.
Despite your fears, many Americans use weapons to successfully protect themselves and those that are important to them.
Report this comment
Barry
April 1st, 2009
3:36 pm
As it stands now a thief/home envader has to ask themselves the question, “does the homeowner have a gun”? If the idiots in Washington had their way and outlawed guns it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out there would be a lot more burgularies, rapes, etc. What the hell would stop someone, i.e. thug, gang from coming into anyone’s home and raping your wife, kids and stealing anything they want right in front of you, if you have no defense? What if a lot of terrorists came into your community that were armed and just started killing people. Who’s going to stop them? Why do you not think other countries haven’t invaded America. The British tried but thanks to guns and our forefathers (many were just farmers) they kept America free! Everyone is so consumed thinking how society is so advanced that things like this just doesn’t happen in America or won’t happen in America. Well, were you suprised when terrorists took over airplanes with boxcutters and crashed them causing more casualties in a matter of minutes than Pearl Harbor? I for one want to have the ability to defend myself and my family! I want to have the ability to defend myself when I’m 60 years against a 26 year old gang member or thug that has broken into my home or tried to carjack me!
Report this comment
swampdog
April 1st, 2009
3:49 pm
Good afternoon, students.
In the USA each year, an average of 90,000 people die as a result of doctors’ mistakes. Should we pass laws limiting doctors or outlawing doctors? Or perhaps, “one doctor a month” laws? Of course not! We prefer to educate people as to the danger doctors present so we can make informed decisions. Duh! But wait! Liberals would rather take the “shotgun approach” and just, because it’s “easier”, outlaw guns or, make them, along with their ownwrs, politically incorrect. Here’s what others have said about our rights:
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
“They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania..
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others.” -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785).
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
“The Constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” -Thomas Jefferson.
“(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -James Madison.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.
“Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion…in private self defense…” -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
I honestly don’t understand the mindset of liberals’ that they think we have somehow become “civilized” and the access to arms is no longer needed. Preposterous claims, indeed! But mankind has had to put up with hoplophobes for about as long as idiots and morons have roamed the earth. We should outlaw five gallon buckets because, “If it saves just one child, it will be worth it!” Swimming pools have taken the life of many a child, but teaching them to swim is preferable to having them drown to learn a lesson, eh? Lesson concluded for today, class. Have a good ‘un!
Report this comment
Red Foreman
April 1st, 2009
3:54 pm
“The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”…since I own guns and the libtards dont, come and get-um…
Report this comment
s
April 1st, 2009
4:02 pm
Hey all – just remember this:
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!
Report this comment
Jimmie
April 1st, 2009
5:17 pm
These facists can have all my guns when they make it up my driveway.
Report this comment
Yankee
April 1st, 2009
6:07 pm
When ya got nothing working for you scream GUN CONTROL. That gets the crazys worked up every time.
Report this comment
Anti Gun Weenie (Formerly Redneck Convert)
April 1st, 2009
6:18 pm
“Actually, I was lying about my machine guns and anti-tank weapon. I’m
actually the type of guy who if confronted by a criminal, would curl up
in a ball and blubber…
PLEASE DON’T KILL ME! TAKE MY DAUGHTER AND DO WHAT
YOU LIKE, OR MY WIFE, JUST PLEASE PLEASE DON’T HURT
ME, I KNOW YOU HAD A HARD CHILDHOOD AND I FEEL
YOUR PAIN…”
Or at least, you’d want laws passed to make it so I couldn’t
defend myself, just like you. F**K YOU, you anti-self-defense
worm!!!
Report this comment
Thor
April 1st, 2009
6:39 pm
I keep hearing that 95% of the guns the drug cartels are using are smuggled from the U.S. but i have seen no proof! All they say are the drug cartels are armed with machine guns,RPG’s (rocket launchers) and hand gernades!! Where can you buy these at???? no where in the U.S.!!
Hand gernades are made for the military and its illegal to own them,no one sells them! Rpg’s are not even made in the U.S. and again its illegal to own one ,No one sells them in the U.S. Duh! Machine guns are sold but they cost an arm and leg and its an act of congress to buy one then after buying it,three months of paperwork! they check on it! you can’t leave the state without permission with it.What i’m getting at here people is that nothing but maybe a few pistols are being smuggled into mexico from the U.S. and that is illegal as well,so catch them!
All that other stuff is either coming from corrupt mexican military or more likely from some of the central american and south america countries,there is millions of real Ak47’s full auto all over south america not like the semi auto ones here which i might add are in short supply since they were banned from import in 1994 and the real ones can be had for as little as 25.00 american in south america,there is thousands of Rpg’s also since Russia and cuba and China sent them to El salvedore years ago and Columbia Rebels import them and sell them to the drug cartels as well ,hand gernades come from there as well!It’s much easier to smuggle them across the southern borders of Mexico than across ours!! unless you are a total idiot! you would realize all this is true!Why would you go to the trouble of trying to smuggle an ar 15 from the U.S. that is semiauto cost 2,000.00 have to get someone to fill out paperwork that if the thing is found in Mexico is going to lead the Law right back to the person who brought it here!!When you can as a drug dealer with millions just call up your friend in South america and say send me 100 Ak47’s 2 case hand gernades and 6 Rpg’s!
Sure Juan! That will be 10,500.00 American and shipping will be with on Hoze’s mule train next wed as he comes over border.Oh you went over the 10,000 mark you get a free 100 lbs of fresh columbian coffee or 2,000 rds of 7.62×39 ammo which do you want. or if you need it overnite we have an old plane that will bring it in over the southern border tomarrow nite!.All the hoopla about its coming from the U.S. is fantsy,smoke and mirrors to fan the flame of their fire to disarm the american citizens because armed citizens are harder to control,unarmed citizens OR slaves as i like to call them are alot easier to control! But the idiots will believe the Obama,Hillary,Kerry crowds version!
Because they are BAAAAA! sheep!
Thor
Report this comment
jon.
April 1st, 2009
7:27 pm
recently a woman who had a suspended lisence, drove, crossed the line, and killed her young daughter. We all took drivers training, we all know the laws, for some reason, she decided the law did not apply to her. I worked with a guy that lost his lisence for drinking and driving. On his fifth arrest in 2001, he lost his liscense until 2013. We all know that this was not his fifth time. Again, the law does not apply to him. How many teenagers can buy alcohol legally? None that I know of, however, they still die in road related accidents. Now I really will get off target here, but, why does it take decades sometimes, to execute a murderer on death row, but an innocent baby can be executed in nine months or less, with no legal representation?? And finally, I always loved guns even as a child, but never owned one until the great gun grab of President Clinton, circa 1993. And to those of you who ask what does one “need” with a assault weapon for hunting, well, I regret to inform you that the bill of rights isnt about hunting, and it is not the bill of “needs”, but the bill of rights. And for those of you who state that the constitution was written before these hi tech weapons, well, I will gladly step in line when digital cameras are banned, and 35 mm film is regulated to eliminate child pornography. Certain extremist religions are banned because they do not wage peace, ban the internet, because whoda thunk? And ban paper porn, and porn dvd’s and videos. I have a longer list, however, I realize that I am boring some of you, and dont wish to take any more of your time. The old saying applies, dont confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up!!
Report this comment
centermass
April 1st, 2009
7:28 pm
Thor, Good point, If people really want to see where the guns in Mexico are coming from, go to the Arizona Republic web site and look under the article called (Gun Strick Mexico points to U.S.) and take a look at the guns that are being sold in a gun store (IN) Mexcico and then try and tell me that the U.S. is the blame (BULL CRAP)
Report this comment
James Raider
April 1st, 2009
7:50 pm
THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR ON OUR OWN SOCIETY – Start there. Guns on the street are a by-product.
Prohibition strains the Constitution and The War on Drugs has been a misguided failure. END IT.
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2009/04/war-on-drugs-time-for-change.html
Time to regain control of our streets and our sanity.
Report this comment
TC
April 1st, 2009
7:59 pm
It makes sense that the AJC prints Bob Barrs opinions on April’s Fools Day… How appropriate! We need to regulate and control the sale of guns. You have the right to own one if you are sane, mature, and have been properly trained to use one. It is just common sense.
Report this comment
Gun Owner
April 1st, 2009
8:26 pm
The problem with the anti-gunners is that they lump all gun issues into one pot. The problem is more complex than that.
First off, the laws that are currently on the books need to be enforced. A lot of antis want to create laws that already exist.
Secondly, a vast majority, if not almost all gun violence is committed with illegally purchased guns by criminals, not law abiding citizens. Law abiding gun owners committ less crime with their weapons than police officers.
What needs to happen is targeted lesgislation to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Punishing 100% of the people for the ALREADY ILLEGAL actions of a small % is ridiculous. If the government is incapable of enforcing their own laws they need to look in the mirror instead of punishing the ones who obey the law. It is obsurd.
I don’t mind closing the gunshow loophole, I don’t mind training requirements (provided they are actually beneficial) and I don’t mind throwing the book at distributors and shop owners who break the law.
I do have a problem with hijacking the Constitution and trying to push an agenda by manipulation, fear, and lies.
Another thing I want to get off my chest is the antis and leftists trying to effectivly ban guns without “banning” guns by taxing ammo out of existence, playing the environment card, etc. How is that any different then the voting tax back in the day to prevent blacks, women, and the poor from voting that was ruled unconstitutional because it blocked access to a constitutional right to vote??
The supreme court held up the individual right to bear arms in the heller case this past summer so shouldn’t that right extend to anything that would hamper individual gun rights, like ecessive ammuniton tax or banning lead bullets?
Report this comment
Joe
April 1st, 2009
9:39 pm
The Mexican gangs have full auto weapons, many that DO come from the U.S. The M16’s are sent to Mexico “legally”, from the U.S. govt to the mexican govt, to help “fight crime”. With all the corruption, these guns immediately are put to use by the gangs. Those in the police and military supplement their income and have 2 employers-their govt, and the drug cartels. They use the U.S. govt supplied weapons in both of their jobs. The Mexican govt. is unwilling to supply serial #s of “U.S.” sourced weapons because it will show that these weapons could not be obtained from U.S. retail stores, even without an “assault weapon” ban in place.
Report this comment
Todd
April 1st, 2009
10:17 pm
Bob you disappoint me. I happen to remember that you wrote a letter back in January supporting a certain individual for Attorney General. Giving him your glowing endorsement. Let me quote you:
“Mr. Holder and I may have had disagreements over policy matters… However, I never had any reason to question his personal and professional integrity, or his deep understanding of and commitment to our Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights… to serve the interests of all of the American people and not just those of the President they serve…”
He wrote a brief in support of the DC gun ban, he want to shut down gun shows, he’s for national firearms registration, waiting periods, gun rationing, etc, etc, etc. Now you can’t possibly be surprised that it’s Eric Holder who is one of the ones leading the charge for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.
Maybe “his deep understanding of and commitment to our Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights….” doesn’t include the 2nd Amendment.
Report this comment
HB 614 to be attached to another bill — Peach Pundit
April 2nd, 2009
9:05 am
[...] also like to point you to former Congressman Bob Barr’s post over at the AJC about HB 614. At some point today, the Georgia Senate will consider HB 614, the “Georgia Prescription [...]
Report this comment
centermass
April 2nd, 2009
11:20 am
This is why we all need to support the efforts of our President. He is doing the best job he can.
Report this comment
centermass
April 2nd, 2009
11:58 am
I didn’t write that previous statemant, one of my co-works did to P’’s me off. I don’t support the Gov’t in any of thier gun control policy’s
Report this comment
DUW
April 2nd, 2009
3:13 pm
I have a question for the anti-gun people. Your home is invaded by a nu-job that has a knife and is planning to rape your children and kill your family. Do you call 911 for help? How long does it take for police to arrive? How long does it take for this nut-job to have his way with you? What are the police going to find when they finally show up?
Now same senario with a gun owner. The owner pulls his gun and either holds the nut-job or kills him and he won’t bother anyone again.
Report this comment
Bob Barr on Gun Control | Bob Barr .com
April 2nd, 2009
9:46 pm
[...] Read the full article here. [...]
Report this comment
Macwarrior
April 3rd, 2009
4:40 am
First socialism then fascism. Guns? What guns? I have no guns. Hitler first made a law for every firearm to be registered. Then once he knew where they were located he marched the streets of every city, town and village to collect them. Then he collected all of the unarmed people that he wished. I have no guns.
Report this comment
Copyleft
April 3rd, 2009
10:21 am
“Hitler pushed gun control through in the 30’s, and look what happened after the German people were disarmed.”
They… conquered most of Europe. And apparently, since Hitler had abolished gun ownership, they did it without guns.
HUH??? Anybody else noticing the huge gap in logic there?
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 3rd, 2009
12:10 pm
Only yours Copyleft, only yours..
Report this comment
bugger
April 3rd, 2009
12:30 pm
Are you the new replacement for Cynthia Tucker?
Report this comment
Davo
April 3rd, 2009
12:37 pm
I’m not sure I would as generous as you are towards Holder, BB. From my perspective he did nothing more than what he was supposed to. The case was flawed because of incompetance and would have been thrown out regardless of the fact that Stevens is a crook..which, btw, he is.
Measuring competancy using the Bush administration as a benchmark is rather weak. The standards you should be using should be much, much higher.
Report this comment
Copyleft
April 3rd, 2009
12:46 pm
So, are you saying that Germany wasn’t disarmed after all? Or that they didn’t invade Poland? Clarify, please.
Because once the German people were “disarmed,” they conquered freakin’ Europe. This is one of the silliest arguments I’ve ever seen!
Report this comment
Jack
April 3rd, 2009
12:54 pm
Barr’s new-found LEFT is nauseating. If he’s being groomed to replace Tucker, the AJC will continue to lose subscribers.
Report this comment
sane jane
April 3rd, 2009
2:20 pm
Jack and bugger, you guys are part of the PROBLEM. Truth does not fall along party lines – both sides (all sides, actually, since you seem to think Libertarian is somehow a synonym for Republican?) have some fair and valid critiques of the other.
But for you to brand BB as “the new Tucker” suggests that your ideological revulsion to ANY position not in lockstep with neocon thought is clouding your better judgment.
Good day to you, sir. I SAID GOOD DAY!
Report this comment
DUW
April 3rd, 2009
2:23 pm
Copyleft,
Read your history, once Hitler had disarmed the citizens only the government had guns. Then they went door to door and took whomever and whatever the government wanted. Then the german “army” (not the civilians) marched acrossed Europe through the countries that had already limited what weapons their citizens could have.
The second amendment was passed for the citizen to be able to protect them selves against governmental tyranny. To take away the citizens weapons is an invatation for the government to take anything and anyone from you for their own use.
The Bible warns us of goernment and it’s real purpose.
1 Samual 8:10-18 says:
Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 (The Lord)said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle [b] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
Report this comment
DUW
April 3rd, 2009
2:33 pm
Copyleft
Read histiry. Hitlers government took all of the citizens weapons away from them. That left only his army with weapons. He was then able to go door to door in Germany and take what ever and whomever he wanted without anyone to defend them.
As is happening now, many citizens thought it a good idea to eliminate the private weapons.
In Australia the government has outlawed most citizens from possessing weapons. The crime rate has skyrocketed.
Don’t stand by silent over gun control!!
“They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
~ Rev. Martin Niemoeller, German Lutheran Pastor ~1945
Report this comment
Tyler Durden
April 3rd, 2009
3:43 pm
Jack and Bugger are two shining examples of why the GOP was left for dead the last two election cycles and will wander in the wilderness for 2-3 more.
Dear GOP: PLEASE, oh please keep the hardline stance on anything that’s not ultraconservative and give the Dems enough time to clean up your messes. Maybe then we can restore America to it’s glory.
Do I like our chances? You Betcha!
Report this comment
Don
April 3rd, 2009
4:58 pm
Ole Barr has seen the light!!
Report this comment
Dave H
April 3rd, 2009
5:00 pm
I’m not following the neocon argument here. Holder is letting a Republican – who was persecuted by Republicans – off the hook, and you’re against that? I guess you’re hatred of any Democrat outweighs your love for anything Republican. Mindless minions (regardless of party) are pathetic – what a sad and angry way to view the world.
Report this comment
Jefferson
April 3rd, 2009
5:12 pm
Truth is Stevens is still a crook.
Report this comment
Kamby
April 3rd, 2009
5:25 pm
Holder did the right thing in this case. There are some real right wing nuts on this board who would definitely compromise their integrity just to be able to say they’re right. The term for them is JERKS!!
Report this comment
CommunistAJC
April 3rd, 2009
5:51 pm
fearless fosNOdick, yeah, Bookman doesn’t like it when conservatives can defend and turn the tables on his liberal goons. Oh, by the way, I’m still smarter than you are, troglodyte.
Report this comment
SwedeAtlanta
April 3rd, 2009
5:53 pm
Re HerbK @ 3:39 p.m.
You are crazy. Holder has not even been in his position for 3 months and you believe you have sufficient information to make that statement? I think not.
First of all, Holder is finally trying to clean out the stench from 8 years of Ashcroft, Gonzales and company. While I believe Stevens is a slimedog of the worst kind I do believe in the rule of law. If the prosecution engaged in the type of misconduct alleged, and violated the law by not providing the defense information they are required by law to provide, then I believe Holder is correct in recommending dismissal.
This is something no one in the Bush Administration would have considered, actually evualuating cases based on the law. Now I do have to wonder why they went after Stevens unless they felt that in the shadow of the U.S. Attorney firings and other missteps they needed to present a cover of fairness or not.
Please don’t come to conclusions until the time has come. Until then enjoy the kool-aid that Rush and company are providing free of charge.
Report this comment
fearless fosdick
April 3rd, 2009
6:04 pm
yea, right you are Commie .. It takes a real genuis to be banned from a blog!
Report this comment
Caveman
April 3rd, 2009
10:33 pm
Once again Barr dares to agree with somethng a Democrat does and the kool-aid drinking conservatards bash him for it. Thinking for himself and standing on principals is unfortunately a big taboo in the Republican party. It got Barr legislated out his own district by his fellow Republicans.
Since when did the GOP become the Commumist Party where loyalty to the party is paramount? At least the Democrats let the voters decide when they want someone like Leiberman(sp)out of the party. Republicans just gerrymander your seat away, no vote needed.
Report this comment
Davo
April 3rd, 2009
11:32 pm
Ok…off subject but do you all remember the events leading up to the fall of the Berlin Wall?
Reps Paul, Frank introduce bill to legalize industrial hemp
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Reps_Paul_Frank_introduce_farming_bill_0403.html
I guess its taken a financial crisis to end this bogus ‘war on drugs’. About time we stopped being ‘hassled by the man!’ lol…hippies
Report this comment
Tina
April 4th, 2009
7:27 am
Hmm, that a pretty selective issue — and a miniscule one — to cover. What about the rest of Holder’s legacy from the Reno years, which should cause any “libertarian” to recoil with horror? Is it really more important to walk a pet pony named Contrary than to cover an issue as important as the Justice Department?
Report this comment
patrick oconnor
April 4th, 2009
10:57 am
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. All public comment should be banned, after indicment? This is the case in most countries. Too often, in the US win at any cost seems to have become the mantra of prosecutors. I have found it truly amazing that the previous administration, tried to get individuals insurance coverage for litigation removed from them. America wake up, Justice is neither blind or even. Freedom is not free and remember the old saying “who is watching the watchers?”
Report this comment
herbK
April 5th, 2009
12:22 am
SwedeAtlanta, yes, I am crazy. That’s been certified. Yet, still not nuts enough to think that holder actually knows what he’s doing. I didn’t drink any kool-aid, idiot, I call it as I see it. The repub prosecution screwed up big time in the Stevens case. Holder knows that, and doesn’t have the ability, intellect, or evidence to uphold the initial conviction. Do I care in the long run? Use to, now, not so much. Politicians always seem to find an escape mechanism, whether by a loophole in the law, or a blunder courtesy of the keystone prosecution. Hell, Bill Handel could have managed this one better.
Get back to the Vodak. Don’t drive & don’t vote.
Report this comment
J Holland
April 5th, 2009
9:36 am
I am over 66 years old & have participated in & discussed politics with
hundreds of state & federal elected office holders over the years. I can truly say that I have never met a conservative Republican
– when you get down to the details they all have have Big Government/Liberal leanings. Only a Liberal would object to the freeing
of a man convicted on trumped charges.
tendencies.
Report this comment
SugarHillDawg
April 6th, 2009
7:32 am
He’s not cleansing it, he is polluting it beyond remediation!!The Republicans really abdicated their role when they offered up no opposition to this guy’s appointment to AG.He fits right in with the rest of them though, CORRUPT to the core.
Report this comment
Reality
April 6th, 2009
7:55 am
Name calling on these blogs leaves no doubt who the conservatives are when they commment.
Report this comment
Road Scholar
April 6th, 2009
9:44 am
They should be in school! If they do not like school, they should be placed in a Military style classroom setting to show them the alternative and give them some personal discipline. Truancy laws should be enforced. Does the law allow them out on weekends? In the custody of an adult? If not how can they go to church on Sunday? Buy ammo for their guns? (Doesn’t Kennesaw still have the mandatory gun ownership law?)
Report this comment
Jefferson
April 6th, 2009
10:31 am
Freedom is scary to some. Kudos Bob.
Report this comment
PinkoNeoConLibertarian
April 6th, 2009
12:25 pm
I might be mistaken, but I think you meant to state:
“For example, city leaders in Kennesaw recently extended the hours during which a person under 18 years of age may NOT lawfully traverse its streets and other public areas to include the hours from 8:30 AM to 2:30 PM”
But regardless…I am at a loss for words. In my beliefs this is so inherently wrong and unconstitutional (freedom of assembly anyone?) as to be abhorrent. So much for due process too. Hey, I’ve got an idea…let’s just declare martial law 24/7/365 and be done with it. That even gets rid of that pesky Habeas Corpus thing.
Report this comment
Eleanor Rigby
April 6th, 2009
3:48 pm
How long until they make a curfew for anyone? That will surely cut down on crime. The American people have spoken. They had a chance to stand up and demand an end to the ever encroaching government but instead chose more of the same. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is whose freedoms they will take away. The American people never met a law they didn’t like. It is my hope that these young people who cannot live their lives in freedom will grow up to vote Libertarian. I hope I live long enough to see the day the American people wake up and realize with freedom comes responsibility and it’s worth it! By the way, I’m the one who voted for you Bob.
Report this comment
David
April 6th, 2009
4:07 pm
While watching Face the nation a week ago, President Obama was asked if he thought we needed more gun laws to help stem the border wars to which he replied ” we dont need new laws, we need to enforce the ones we already have”
Report this comment
Eric
April 6th, 2009
4:48 pm
This is a deplorable law!! So what if teenagers walk outside any time of day? No one has the right to assume criminal activity. And if these kids are not in school, they are missing out and will pay for it in other ways. If, as an adult, I were brought into a curfew, I would refuse. Once again, Mr. Barr points out the encroachment of Big Brother–please keep us informed. You already have my vote!!
Report this comment
clyde
April 6th, 2009
5:18 pm
Last week I watched a well organized raid on a store by about 40 young people on their lunch break from a nearby school.They came in a bunch,all at once,they positioned themselves quickly,two grabbed some candy bars and clowned around paying for them.Several others blocked the clerk’s view.The rest filled back packs with soda,cookies and candy bars.One wears a back pack,two others fill it.In less than two minutes they were gone.They streamed out and returned to school with their plunder.Any wonder people want a curfew?
Report this comment
SaveOurRepublic
April 6th, 2009
6:04 pm
The continued attack on the 2nd Amendment won’t soon end, but will (rather) increase…irregardless of the empty lip service “Bacrock Obuma” pays to questions of further “gun control” laws. The Dems will leverage this incidents (like the possible PYSOP in NY & probable one at VaTech) to “justify” further infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights.
Report this comment
Joshua
April 6th, 2009
9:18 pm
What about schools with open campus policies whose students want to go grab a sandwich at lunch?
I agree with Bob Barr here. Punishing innocent people is bad policy.
Report this comment
Vexorg
April 6th, 2009
9:41 pm
All of you liberal are sniveling about the “rights” of teenagers are forgetting one small detail….the only “rights” a CHILD has, is the right to food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and an education. Any other “rights” granted are the purview of the CHILD’S parent!
More problems regarding our youth would be solved overnight if a child’s Mother and Father started acting like PARENTS instead of “family unit partners” or “buddies”. A family is NOT a democracy; if the parents can be held legally responsible for a child’s illegal acts, then the PARENT reserves the right to set limits on the child’s behaviors.
If I have learned anything about “Modern” Parenting, its that the “enlighted” people writing books and giving lectures on the “correct” way a child should be raised….usually DON’T have any children of their own!
Report this comment
noncitizen2009 at gmail.com
April 7th, 2009
8:25 am
I recently learned that yet another criminal government in Florida has thoroughly demonstrated that they are anti-American idiots by enacting an ordinance that outlaws people who are listed on any Sex Offender Registry from going to the beaches, parks, zoos, libraries, and similar locations. The criminal regime which has done this is the Lee County government. They were encouraged to pass the ordinance by the County’s criminal Sheriff.
Their illegal ordinance applies to everyone, regardless of if a person is on probation or parole or not, and regardless of when a person completed his/her legally prescribed sentence (literally could’ve been decades ago). People who support these laws are not only uninformed and stupid, they are immoral and completely un-American.
Report this comment
williebkind
April 7th, 2009
9:03 am
If you are a socialist, you want gun control or guns outlawed. If you are a real American, you believe in the ideal of freedom and the bill of rights. Can we have a socialist government with our present constitution? My right to have something does not matter what I do with it. I am innocent until proven guilty. If I want an assault rifle, a machine gun, or 40mm cannon, why does that bother you? I am a law abiding citizen. Murder and such goes back to Cain slew Able. However the world progressed and populations increased despite the lack of freedoms for the common folk. I will exercise my constitutional right to bear arms and I will fight for real Amercians to have any weapon that person wants. Freedom is Freedom unless you are socialist. Please do not tell me you are not a socialist by wanting gun control… I hate lies.
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 7th, 2009
10:06 am
Vexorg, at 17 I was emancipated and had already been to basic training for the Army Reserves (split option soldier). I had a GED, a job, and a military calling, I couldn’t have done that with cops on my back all the time. Are you saying I didn’t have any rights?
Report this comment
clyde
April 7th, 2009
10:44 am
Jimbo,You had the right to salute anything that moved and to paint anything that didn’t.
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 7th, 2009
10:53 am
Copyleft, if you can’t tell the difference between weapons in the hands of the state and weapons in the hands of the people then you’ve got issues. The German STATE armed itself in the 1930s while it simultaneously disarmed the German PEOPLE. The state did this to make the consolidation of power and the elimination of dissenters easier.
When the night of broken glass occurred, it was perpetrated, or at least led, by SA thugs. Had I been a Jewish store or home owner I would’ve been much happier that night with a gun in my house than not. Having a gun in my possession might have made my eventual escape to the UK or US easier too. Actually, if SA members had been armed on the night of the long knives, maybe the SS wouldn’t have managed to kill so many of them, so I suppose they got theirs. Also, history tells us how effective armed citizens were in places like France, Poland, and the Netherlands. It’s just that the allies had to take the trouble of arming them after they became occupied.
Oh, and you clearly don’t understand what a militia is, or why it’s different from the standing military of the US or why the Constitution says what it does. I don’t really blame you for the misunderstanding. Most people have had their perception twisted by the government over the last century or so. Still, it’s really hard to fear the people while hiding behind that big standing army of theirs. I see now why so many state constitutions claim that standing armies are a danger to liberty. Sort of makes you wonder why a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, but a standing army is a threat, eh?
Report this comment
DawgBite
April 7th, 2009
11:09 am
I’m all for banning superspeeders from Atlanta’s interstates.
Report this comment
Redneck Convert
April 7th, 2009
11:11 am
Well, they need to give these little punks a good beating upside the head and shoulders. Everybody knows when you see a kid without his parents there’s trouble in the making. Besides, they can’t buy a beer when they’re 18 so why should they be allowed to walk around when they’re under 21? They need to be at home or school, not out bothering decent folk.
Report this comment
German Shepherd
April 7th, 2009
1:26 pm
It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.”—Jeremiah 10:23. You see what happens when man tries to come up with is own rules. We truly are silly people aren’t we?
Report this comment
J. Turbin
April 7th, 2009
1:53 pm
Enter your comments here
Report this comment
Logical Dude
April 7th, 2009
2:19 pm
Well, this is a result of the non-use of common sense in our laws. I refer to Prohibition as an example of this. You just outlaw (enter shady item here) just because a small element leads to (enter illegal activity here).
This basically criminilizes activity which most people know will hurt nobody.
These prohibited activities include: alcohol, drugs, gambling, censorship, crossing the border, carrying lots of money, gun control, and now includes curfews.
These activities in and of themselves hurt nobody. Alcohol and drugs in moderation are okay, but in excess for a very few lead to violence and crime.
Having a poker game at home with a bunch of friends hurts nobody, but the lure of some easy money can lead a very small minority to crime.
Someone reading banned literature hurts nobody. Now, if they act in a criminal way based on the literature, punish the criminal, not the literature.
Crossing a border into the US now gives the government reason to search with no cause. So watch out if your computer happens to have inappropriate images saved. If not, you still may not get the computer back.
A report from last year had authorities stop a person carrying 40,000 USD in cash. There was no other reason to suspect him of anything. But because some drug runners carry loads of cash, just having lots of cash in your possession warrants suspicion.
Guns are banned in many situations, some common sense, but most because of the fear of a small minority who would use them for illegal purposes.
Curfews are another government intrusion that punishes the innocent as well as the guilty.
In all of these cases, there you suspicion or punishment of the innocent. Where is the common sense in that? Where is the Liberty?
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 7th, 2009
2:22 pm
Oh right.. and it if you really want to get into it, the third reich re-armed in violation of the Treaty of Versailles which just goes to show you how well arms control works when the subject of those controls has no interest in complying.
Report this comment
Logical Dude
April 7th, 2009
3:20 pm
Darn it, I had a great post that seems to have disappeared in the inter-ether-net.
Report this comment
Davo
April 8th, 2009
7:27 am
Your right that the US has no business propping up the car companies. Please, for your own sake, lay off the CFB’s…your starting to sound like a GOP techno-phobe. It’s past time we started thinking about saving energy in this country. If you wont do it for the envirement then do it for your own wallet.
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 8th, 2009
9:24 am
I haven’t seen any (anecdotal) evidence that CFLs are worse than incandescent bulbs. Ours have lasted many times longer than the bulbs they replace and use significantly less energy. I’m waiting for LED bulbs though, that will certainly be the future.
Report this comment
clyde
April 8th, 2009
9:31 am
People buying Chrysler vehicles need all the help they can get.
Report this comment
Road Scholar
April 8th, 2009
10:25 am
Bob, if the cars were worth a damn, we wouldn’t need warranty quarentees! As for the technology, why don’t you go back to washing your clothes by beating them on a rock?
“This era produced some of the ugliest, most underpowered and dangerous cars ever to roll off those assembly lines.” And whose fault is that? The American consumer? Oh wait, they are buying something else, if they are buying at all. Chrysler has already been bailed out, remember? How many times is enough? What should we do with their out of touch managemnt? Or is what’s left of your selective memory failing? Look at Consumer Reports latest list of the worst ten performing vehicles…most are American (Jeep has 3).
Maybe instead of putting design and performance standards on the cars,their boards should put performance and related salaries on their executives.
Report this comment
booger
April 8th, 2009
10:28 am
The manipulation of the auto industry has only begun. SUVs and pickups are once again the largest selling segment of the industry, while hybrids are sitting on the car lots. The acclaimed Prius which six months ago had a waiting list now is 80 days overstocked. Do you suppose that our auto companies will be able to build on the one segmeng of the industry where they have the edge?
Certainly not. Obama has alresdy answered that question. And what happens when people don’t buy these new government cars? The government has a whole bevy of taxing solutions which can modify the bad behavior of the auto market. they’ll start with raising gas tax to punishing levels. If that’s not enough, Roll out a carbon tax based on MPG. There is no end to tax solutions for any behavior this adim. doesn’t like.
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 8th, 2009
11:41 am
Oh? Government regulations didn’t affect car designs in the eighties?
The 1980 Corvette California begs to differ. But it should be noted that during the 80’s (well, 1979) is when Chrysler took their loan from the government, got their legs back under them (for a few years) and paid the loan back (by 1983).
So there is some truth to both claims, that government regulation (specifically by California, but we didn’t know how properly apply environmental technologies at the time) ruined some American designs, but also that there were some positive results from loaning US automakers money.
Report this comment
matt
April 8th, 2009
12:09 pm
If the manufacturers would focus on making about 6 noteworthy cars with minimal engineered obsolescence instead of 45 different halfway engineered and assembled ‘market research’ derived straw grasps they would probably be in far better shape. Bells and whistles do not disguise poor body panel alignment. The bailout money went to secure the interests of the UAW. Lobbying prowess should never be underestimated, they just exemplified this by openly robbing the American taxpayer. How the lobbying practice is allowed to continue blows my mind. ¼ of the US population would have been standing on the Whitehouse lawn with torches in 1910, but no one seems to care anymore as long as their stomach is full and their TV still works.
Report this comment
booger
April 8th, 2009
12:41 pm
Jimbo,
There is a difference between govt. regulations and takeover. GM and Chrysler are now effectively run by a govt. panel reporting one level from Obama. When you can fire the CEO or insist you allow a takeover by a foreign co. You’ve gone way past a few regulations.
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 8th, 2009
12:58 pm
Touche’ booger.
I didn’t say that what our government was doing is the right thing, I said loaning a company government money doesn’t have to be a bad idea.
Matt,
It wouldn’t have mattered in 1910 if they had shown up on the white house lawn with torches, look up the “bonus army.”
Report this comment
Jake
April 8th, 2009
1:26 pm
My sister has a Chrysler and the check engine light stays on. It came on 6 mos after she bought this Jeep piece of (**&^!!. Its been on for months. I told her not to buy that crap and buy a Honda, now she regrets it. Now the front bearing are bad, the car has 50K miles on it.
Thanks UAW…………
Report this comment
matt
April 8th, 2009
1:33 pm
Jimbo,
I specifically chose a date prior to 1913 for a reason. Horrible story about the Bonus Army though, I wonder why they never deemed that important enough to teach it to us in school. Just more negative impact from wars. The poor always die, the rich always seem to better themselves.
Report this comment
Jimbo
April 8th, 2009
2:02 pm
Matt,
There was a bonus army before that one. We shafted the continental army too!
Report this comment
john doe
April 8th, 2009
2:10 pm
‘Just Nasty & Mean’ is a complete neocon fool. Iran is a paper tiger and just uses threats to get attention and concessions. Bush should have dismantled the state department because his only strategy was to use foolish force to control the world’s oil. He and cheney were foolish failures.
Report this comment
Jefferson
April 8th, 2009
2:35 pm
GM now knows the feeling of being on the other side of the mahogany desk.
Report this comment
Copyleft
April 8th, 2009
2:50 pm
What is Mr. Barr’s counter-proposal? He, and many other commentators, keep skipping over the fact that GM’s “firing” was a condition for the company to receive public bailout money. GM didn’t HAVE to fire its CEO… but if they come whining to us for taxpayer-funded bailouts, why SHOULDN’T we impose conditions?
The days of writing blank checks to corporations, simply because their lobbyists are “good buddies,” should be over and done with.
Report this comment
matt
April 8th, 2009
2:57 pm
The days of writing blank checks to corporations should never have dawned…
Report this comment
Vexorg
April 8th, 2009
5:26 pm
Jimbo, what’s the matter…..were you CAUGHT “keeping it real” and living the THUG (a.k.a. CRIMINAL) lifestyle because your Mother and Father NEGLECTED their duties as parents? The ONLY people I see whining about cops are the ones out “Perpatrating”…Waaaaa, the evil cops are picking on lil ol me because I am a wannabe criminal attempting to establish my “rep”…Waaaaaaa!
Wow…so you went to basic training as a reservist. What do you want, a medal or a chest to pin it on? I would suggest that you go down to the local VFW or American Legion Hall and take a look at some REAL heros, the ones that SERVED in the combat hellholes of Europe, The Pacific, Korea, Vietnam, and even more recent conflicts. Tell them that you proudly completed basic training and what a “real” warrior you are!
If this current trend of NEGLECT and IRRESPONSIBILITY continues, the government will eventually step in and take control. And dear “Jimbo”…if you think the police “hassling” you is bad, wait until the obamunists pass even more laws controlling your life…..because, obama’s people are smarter and know better what’s good for you – I know this, because they told me!
And it has already happened…irresponsible liberals with their “enlighted” philosophies on “new” and “modern” methods of education have turned our once great schools into to cesspools of minimum performance and undisciplined criminal hellholes where the average student fears for their safety daily, and have become nothing more than 8 hours of state-sanctioned day care.
Don’t worry “Jimbo” and all of you other fellow-traveller liberals…the obamunist are now here to save the day from all of us “evil” conservatives. HAH! 100+ days into his administration, and obama has accomplished the typical liberal agenda: NOTHING!
Report this comment
booger
April 8th, 2009
6:03 pm
Copyleft,
If you don’t want to call it “firing” then we could call it “bribery” which is exactly what you have described.
Real problem is that now Obama has mastered running an auto company, He has given Geitner the authority to fire the Mgt. of any bank he feels may not be performing well. Nationalization under the guise of being helpful.
Report this comment
MOT
April 9th, 2009
12:40 am
Jake: My Honda’s check engine light came on a few months ago, I bought it used 18 months ago with 33,000 miles. I was fed up with the American cars, we had given each of the big three our hard earned money to give each a chance. They trained us well, so we have had Toyota and Honda ever since a few years ago, but alas, even they may not turn out to be all we hoped.
With that said, what the government is doing is wrong. We are headed down the wrong road and no one seems able or willing to get us back on the right one.
Report this comment
Bitter EX democrat
April 9th, 2009
7:01 am
Gov. Palin is calling for special election to REdecide Senator Stevens
election, in light of the democrat led obfuscation of evidence, etc.
Report this comment
Copyleft
April 9th, 2009
8:09 am
If the executives at GM were so good at running the company without help, why did they beg for a bailout?
Seems to me they’re asking for a favor, on our dime. And we have the right to set conditions on whether or not we bail them out. If they don’t like it, they can fail on their own.
Report this comment
dgroy
April 9th, 2009
8:23 am
The problem is, we’re all sitting here behind our computers talking when we should be marching on Washington and refusing to leave and demanding positive reform. What we’re doing isn’t working…..we can’t spend our way out of this mess. This is all according to the plans spelled out in “The True Story Of The Bilderburg Group”. Bob, I know you’ve probably read it. This is our government’s way of getting us in line…..
Report this comment
Pedro
April 9th, 2009
9:28 am
DGROY, I think you’re the only blogger here with a brain. Thanks.
Report this comment
pat
April 9th, 2009
9:31 am
They should have never received a penny of government help in the first place. Just like any government intervention, it only prolongs the agony. If you concentrate on having your hand out, you cannot concentrate on doing your job or improving. Everyday examples are our banks and welfare recipients. Welfare recipients won’t get jobs because welfare pays better than most menial labor…But you have to start somewhere to get ahead. Banks quit lending money to anybody under a 900 credit score because they don’t need to give credit to get money from obama.
Government hand outs don’t fix anything, they only make things worse…You’d think after nearly 100 years of tried and failed socialist experiments, people would look at history and quit trying things that do not work…But oh no! Socialism will work this time! It never has and never will.
The bad news is this type of crap will continue for a while, the good news is it won’t last long, because the people will eventually run out of money to pay for failed government experiments.
Report this comment
Miro
April 9th, 2009
9:48 am
pat,
I guess you have not heard of the loan to Chrysler in 1979, and of the result.
Report this comment
pat
April 9th, 2009
11:21 am
Miro…yes I see the result, not good.
Report this comment
Davo
April 10th, 2009
8:45 am
Go ahead and lump ‘Homeland Security’ in with the TSA, BB. Any govt agency that abuses civil rights as much as these needs to be eliminated. Remember…all enemies foreign and domestic.
Report this comment
Copyleft
April 10th, 2009
9:12 am
Mr. Barr, you might want to take the time learn a little about X-rays and millimeter-wave systems before denouncing their use as “harmful and dangerous.”
Such ignorance really detracts from your message about the entirely legitimate issues of privacy and civil rights.
Report this comment
Stan
April 10th, 2009
9:22 am
Copy, maybe you should re-read the article. Mr Barr does not say that millimeter wave systems are “harmful and dangerous”. He states that X-rays are harmful (which they are if you overly exposed).
Report this comment
Dakotared
April 10th, 2009
9:41 am
MChammer: You like so many other use the driver’s license analogy completly in error. Just as you need a license to drive a car in public, you also need a license to carry a loaded firearm in public. You are proposing that a license be required to simply own a gun, however a license is NOT required to own a car, only to operate it in public. Give a little more thought to your incorrect use of this analogy before espousing it in the future. You may find comfort in the fact that many other people also incorrectly use this analogy between cars and guns…
Report this comment
Eleanor Rigby
April 10th, 2009
10:13 am
Land this plan in Cuba or everyone on board get a Franklin to the face! They have lost their mind. And it’s not just the TSA. From the school board’s zero tolerance (Remember the Tweety chain?), to the court’s zero tolerance and sex offender laws (Remember Genarlow Wilson?), the whole country has lost its mind. The people have spoken. They would trade their liberty for “security”.
Report this comment
lwwmm7
April 10th, 2009
10:20 am
Right you are, Bob. Big Brother knows where we are, who we communicate with, what we buy, and no telling what else by our voluntary use of cell phones, debit cards, grocery store discount cards, internet use, on and on. The genie is out of the bottle, and just wait until cash is no longer used, and implants are the norm. Dogs and horses have them now, how long before we start using using human chips as a “safety measure”?
Report this comment
Miro
April 10th, 2009
10:22 am
pat…you must have missed the years after the 1979 loan. You cannot take the situation after 30 years as “the result.”
Report this comment
Redshield
April 10th, 2009
11:06 am
There’s only one thing to do. Become really wealthy (by any means necessary) so you can drive up to your private jet and just bypass the TSA abuse. Homeland Security? Did this not not scare the crap out of you the day it was announced? Hello Stalin? Hitler? Mao? It’s okay though, just renew your faith in God this weekend folks. All is according to plan.
Report this comment
Corporal Punishment
April 10th, 2009
11:20 am
Like we need another reason to dislike the Bush/Cheney-paranoia created invasions into civil rights. It would be a big improvement if they would quit having chat fest at the screener, check their attitudes and just do their jobs.
It would also be an improvement of they would limit the strip searches to only attractive people.
Report this comment
Barr Should Be Barred
April 10th, 2009
11:39 am
You’re a complete IDIOT! Take the time to actually learn what TSA’s mission is..to protect the Nation’s transportation systems. I bet you’d be the first person to critize TSA if there were another 9/11. Thankfully TSA has security measures in place to prevent that type of attack again.
Report this comment
The Anti-Wooten
April 10th, 2009
11:51 am
Barr Should Be Barred, do you sleep underneath your bed at night? Have you soiled your trousers today? What kind of Communist are you that you’d be totally and completely willing to throw away all of our freedoms as Americans for some slight measure of security?
Report this comment
Common Sense
April 10th, 2009
11:54 am
It’s one thing to criticize if you know the details, and another to make snide comments about speculations, like what you have done here Mr. Barr. To be honest, not every method of security is very convenient to the traveling public, but, unfortunately, we can’t, as a people sacrifice our lives for the inconvenience of taking your shoes off and taking all the metal out of our pockets. I’ve been through the millimeter wave, and frankly, I didn’t mind at all. You didn’t seem to mention the presence of local law enforcement officers at St. Louis, so, we can just ignore that like you so efficiently did.
What this country needs is good, and credible questioning of the government. What it does not need is rhetoric and ignorance of fact, which you have so graciously shown here.
Report this comment
Rick
April 10th, 2009
1:52 pm
Sure is easy to tel who voted for our bowin pansy in chief.
Barr is dead on. A knee jerk reaction, is the tsa really going to save anyone?
It will save the job of more gov. idiots. You know the kind, they live everywhere. Something bad happened so we need a who new government Dept. Cabinet level. Right. If the airlines handed out a small one shot 410 derringer to every passenger over the age of 21 who requested one, bingo no more hijackers. Don’t worry about the one whack job, he has one shot , he is worried about the other 40-50 folks. I have seen people held in airports for stupid reasons. Want to try it, go buy a ticket, one way with cash. You will never board the plane. Have more than 5k in your pocket. ain’t gonna ride, you are a security threat. Lets not mention it is nobody s damn business when you buy a ticket or how much cash you have. Welcome to the new amerika comrade.
Report this comment
Rick
April 10th, 2009
1:58 pm
God hates trash, so if a man chooses to apply for and receive from the state a permit to carry a weapon, and this makes him an incestuous head case on food stamps?
Somebody different than you is GOT to be bad , huh?
If we all thought like you? one big nation of spineless libs?
I love that logic.
Report this comment
herbK
April 10th, 2009
2:39 pm
The TSA is nothing more than a bunch of gubmint entrenched thugs. Like our current level of cop, they prey on the power they have been given, steal what they can and ignore the civil rights of this country.
Just another excuse to screw the stupid unwashed masses. And they like it, go figure.
Report this comment
anonymous coward
April 10th, 2009
2:52 pm
I am against the use of the millimeter wave devices not because they are dangerous (the amount of harmful radiation has been equated to 2 minutes of exposure that you get while flying at altitude) but because this goes too far. Our *original* government was not founded to do these things but to honor the rights and freedoms of the individual. You lemmings that hand over everything to agencies like the TSA will wonder what happened when you’re sitting in a jail cell with no recourse and no access to a lawyer or family — oh wait that doesn’t happen here. I’ll agree that Bob’s article isn’t the best presentation of this, but the intent is very real.
What about warrantless wiretapping? Right – what’s the problem if you’re not doing something wrong, right? I suppose you don’t mind if I start snooping through your mail because after all, I’m from the government and I’m here to protect you. Funny thing is, the Obama administration has put forth arguments to push forward warrantless wiretapping that actually says the federal government is not bound by the freaking constitution. Oh yay! Change! NOT.
Freaking morons.
Report this comment
Brother Dave
April 10th, 2009
2:56 pm
Dear Hearts:
I have known good citizens to be ARRESTED and have their money confiscated; all because they had a large sum of CASH. By their local pollice. It takes forever to get it returned. Kumbaya,
Report this comment
Mr Liberty
April 10th, 2009
2:58 pm
OK, so you want some reality and real background on the TSA. How about the fact that Bob Barr voted in favor of both the rejected House version of the Airport Security Federalization Act and the eventually-signed Senate version (the bill that created the TSA). He also voted for the wonderful Patriot Act, and virtually every other Orwellian fascist proposal put in front of his face by the wonderful Bush administration.
Hey Bob, sorry to point out the obvious, but where were your principles while folks like Ron Paul were attempting to get supposed conservatives to vote against big, fascist, totalitarian government??? Yes, we were attacked by supposedly 19 guys with box cutters. What does that have to do with imposing the american equivalent of the Stazi on us?? Why exactly, aside from the obvious reason that republicans are supposed to support anything a republican president proposes without bothering to note their oath to uphold the constitution, did you vote for all this totalitarian stuff??
Hey, don’t get me wrong, I am glad to hear anyone stand up against this kind of unconstitutional behavior, but the time to do that was back in 2001 while everyone was voting on bills they hadn’t bothered to read. Everyone except Ron Paul of course.
Report this comment
Copyleft
April 10th, 2009
3:17 pm
“Sure is easy to tel who voted for our bowin pansy in chief.”
Rick, your comment makes no sense. The TSA got started down this path with G.W. Bush and full Republican support. Everybody who voted for G.W. Bush was enthusiastically on board with surrendering our freedoms in the name of security.
How does that translate to the voters who elected our current President? They’re the OPPOSITE of the lockstep, fear-driven, right wing losers.
Report this comment
matt
April 10th, 2009
3:33 pm
Like I keep saying… the masses will not notice until they can’t stuff their face in front of their TV every night. Then they will start to pay attention. These agencies operate like businesses. They are out to secure their own futures. The more control they have over their unwilling consumers, the easier it is. The Monopoly against personal freedoms just keeps getting stronger. Why, oh why could you or Ron Paul not have even been considered. For god’s sakes, Paul said he would abolish the IRS and it was hardly mentioned. Imagine the news hoopla that would have resulted if McCain or Obama had even hinted at it? I’m so sick of ‘yes’ men and coporate puppets parading around as ‘leaders’. It is as if guilt has no effect on them any longer.
Report this comment
free bird
April 10th, 2009
3:46 pm
i flew from atl to west coast (767 aircraft) a couple of weeks ago and never had to show any id.
Report this comment
Jason
April 10th, 2009
4:31 pm
In a recent USA Today article regarding a new program by TSA to begin additional random searching of passengers at gate entry was nothing more than another attempt by TSA to further harass the flying public. This should not be necessary as passengers are subjected to bag, personal, laptop, etc. x-rays at check in.
After reading down a few paragraphs I got a good chuckle when I read the “motive” for the (additional search) program: (Quote)“…the TSA fears that airport workers, who are not routinely screened, could sneak weapons into the secure area of an airport and give them to passengers.” Was Mr. Roth serious when he said that? I guess I am nuts by suggesting this but why don’t they (TSA) begin a thorough screening of ‘airport workers’? DUH! Good God Almighty! doesn’t this make more sense than to continue harassing passengers at the gate level?
someone else alluded to the fact that they “chat” at the gates. I observe too much “shuckin’ ‘an jivin’” there to be meaningful in searching for weapons, etc.
Report this comment
Mitzymy
April 10th, 2009
4:59 pm
I flew, last summer from Indianapolis to Denver, slept all night on the floor, and flew out the next morning to Spokane and on to Seattle. No one asked who I was. But when TSA was formed and interviewing and testing for employees I applied, but wasn’t good enough. I am a college educated, seasoned,experienced worker who had already spent 33 years as an inspector, but they wanted the very best, and I wasn’t one of them. If they aren’t that good anymore, maybe I should re-apply.
Report this comment
The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar
April 10th, 2009
6:54 pm
Dumbya made sure that wages were low for the TSA screeners, and you get what you pay for. Starting pay is in the $12-13/hour range for most cities. Not going to attract the best and the brightest.
Report this comment
Jim
April 10th, 2009
11:38 pm
Lets get the story straight,Steve Bierfeldt came through the St Louis airport with the intent to cause a problem, he failed to provide any information or cooperate with TSA officers or the airport police, if you research the reason you will find out his motive. Google, (Missouri State police, militia, Ron Paul). He wasn’t just passing through Missouri folks, the Ron Paul people were in Missouri because there was a MIAC report specifically describing supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout. I was there and the only thing the TSA did wrong in my opinion was failing to have Steve Bierfeldt arrested for interfering in a Federal screening process.
http://www.infowars.com/secret-state-police-report-ron-paul-bob-barr-chuck-baldwin-libertarians-are-terrorists/
Report this comment
deborahinAthens
April 11th, 2009
7:46 am
I have been railing against the USAA Patriot Act since the pea-brains in Washington passed it. It is an outrage that in this, a supposedly free country, that we have to be subject to this type of invasion of privacy. All of these liberties that we are losing are a very big deal, but it seems that no one is willing to listen. The American people think these invasions by the TSA and Homeland Security make us “safe”, when, in fact, if anyone wanted to blow up a building or a plane badly enough, they could do it. My heart aches to see this new America where the general populace is so ignorant and stupid they are willing to accept this.
Report this comment
Redneck Convert
April 13th, 2009
10:06 am
Well, I say strip them buck-nekkid and search them inside out. Anything to keep me and mine safe. I don’t care about this liberty stuff. That’s just a bunch of bunk from the libruls.
These TSA people that look at the pictures from that fancy machine need a pay raise, that’s for sure. It might not be too bad to see alot of people buck nekkid, but if Sister Dusty or this deborahinAthens show up in a picture it must be awful hard on the eyes. Not to mention getting put off your feed for a month.
Anyhow, I’m sorry to see Bob Barr done turned librul on us. We need to do anything we can to catch the Terrists. I’m tired of staying in the trailer and sleeping with my anti-tank weapon and my two machine guns that I keep for self defense and hunting. If you got nothing to hide–and you won’t with this new machine–there’s no reason to worry.
Report this comment
Toni
April 13th, 2009
10:30 am
Amen!
Report this comment
bubbatech02
April 13th, 2009
10:38 am
Anyone on the right (including me) who doesnt give Obama respect for this should turn in their credibility cards now. I hope Obama continues it. Yes, I know the president has little to do with the actual operation on the ground, but everyone always yelps about how Obama is an appeaser and will back down. He showed this past weekend that he is willing to let the military do its job.
And you cannot say enough about the SEALs and the captain. Bravery. Just amazing bravery.
Report this comment
Jack
April 13th, 2009
11:03 am
Nice to see credit given when it’s due. Hope Obama will deserve and receive credit a year from now as our recovery continues and we emerge from these dark economic days. Well done, Bob Barr.
Report this comment
Indignicant
April 13th, 2009
11:04 am
Can you imagine this for a moment, the Maerska Alabamas “rich cargo” was food aid to starving civilians (in Somalia, Kenya & Uganda). I could see if it was carrying Mercedes-benz automobiiles for sale to oil-rich shieks, but this was an humanitarian cargo! It amazes me the the US hasn’t invaded Somalia~land & whipped some sorely-needed democracy on this country; which to this date still isn’t recognized as a country, by the world community. If Mr Bush was still in office, all one would have to mention is the untapped oil & uranium resources locked away in that sparse country, and I’m sure their (and our) political troubles would end.
Report this comment
Tommy Lee Maddox
April 13th, 2009
11:12 am
With all of the media and liberals attempting to feminize the military and warfare itself, it is a refreshing day when terrorists [oh excuse me, criminals] have their heads blown off.
Go USA!
Report this comment
Sam
April 13th, 2009
11:30 am
Easier said than done. Somalia has an unlimited amount of armed pirates that, under the influence of drug, can do some really crazy and nasty stuff.
I applaude as well the US and French interventions, but believe the only way to tackle the problem is but removing Pirate’s logistical capabilities – boats in particular. And yes, that does mean taking actions on land.
Report this comment
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
April 13th, 2009
11:55 am
No, pirates are criminals. No need to glorify them, they are not attacking the United States, they are mere thieves. Three bullets, three dead, zero collateral damage.
Refreshing to have an adult in charge after these eight long years…
Report this comment
Steve
April 13th, 2009
1:02 pm
I agree that congrats need to go to both Obama and the skill of the Seal snipers.
First to President Obama for allowing attempted negotiations to continue until it was apparent the pirates were coming dangerously close to one of their own ports. Then taking the correct, decisive action that the pirates could not reach that port and give permission for the Navy to bring an end to the situation.
Second to the Seal snipers who shot from one moving ship to another moving vessel and took out each intended target. Proving once again why they are the BEST at what they do.
Report this comment
jt
April 13th, 2009
1:51 pm
If the news comes out that the crew of the “Alabama” was not allowed to have weapons (due to some Federal Goverment or UN law), But still, goes into known pirate waters, it isn’t right for my tax dollars to finance their rescue. Just saying.
A real Libertarian.
Report this comment
Big Government Hater
April 13th, 2009
2:23 pm
We wouldn’t need the TSA if our government would allow flight personnel to carry guns. Heaven forbid that we allowed to protect ourselves!
Report this comment
JackLeg
April 13th, 2009
2:27 pm
Aren’t we helping them? Don’t they all want to be martyrs? We need to help more of them!
Report this comment
William
April 13th, 2009
2:52 pm
Ah, I remember when Ford rescued our ship. Of course, he lost more men than he rescued.
Report this comment
William
April 13th, 2009
2:56 pm
Oh, and I forgot: the Cambodians released the sailors before we attacked.
Report this comment
Logical Dude
April 13th, 2009
3:08 pm
Jim, the argument is still valid. You can be stopped for carrying a lot of money. THIS IS STUPID. What threat is there to have cash? NONE. If I had more time, I could go through the series of stupid rules that punish the innocent, such as curfews, no liquor laws, gambling laws, etc.
Report this comment
LeeH1
April 13th, 2009
3:17 pm
First, go in with armed planes and ships, and destroy all the boats and ships of Somalia (yes, even the small fishing boats) now floating in their ports and harbors.
Then simply mine the ports and harbors of Somalia, so they can’t bring in any more pirated ships to plunder while being ransomed. They will have to leave the captured ships out in the open sea, with a bored crew, and prey to attacks by military and naval forces. Or try to bring the booty into port where a mine might go off underneath the hull and sink the ship.
If they can’t get out to sea in armed boats, then they can’t pirate peaceful civilian ships filled with humanitarian aid for their own country. Deny them a base of operations, and the operations will stop.
We can let them build or buy their fishing and trade ships again when they behave themselves and show that their own government will stop the pirates.
They can be pirates and go hungry, or they can be peaceful and live. Only in Somalia would this be a difficult choice.
Report this comment
George Uriesi
April 13th, 2009
3:20 pm
It is safe to say thanks that we have an adult administration in Washington. Left to all these trigger happy, go-get-em people like Mr Barr, the US should have invaded Somalia just to prove the point…
Phew!
Report this comment
Dino
April 13th, 2009
3:24 pm
The U.S. did invade Somalia a few years ago, got their tails kicked and pulled out. Thanks Bill Clinton!!!
Report this comment
Copyleft
April 13th, 2009
3:44 pm
I think that’s unfair, George. Barr isn’t a neocon; he’s been strongly against the notion of the U.S. deploying troops in every direction to invade and spread an empire.
It’s one of the things that sets him apart from the thoroughly discredited neoconservatives and their failed Iraq adventure.
Report this comment
reasonable
April 13th, 2009
4:00 pm
This was a well managed and executed handling of a crisis for which the President and his administration (including the military) deserve the credit along with the courage of the merchant crew and its captain. That said, there is no easy quick term solution to the problem of piracy in a lawless nation with the longest coastline in Africa. It will take time and more than the mere bombing of villages and small port areas. To the question of why merchant ships are not armed and some sort of U.S. or UN prohibition, first, many merchant ships do allow their crew to carry arms. Others do not but that is due to the decisions of the actual shipping companies with their fears about losses and liability. It is also these companies who have routinely bargained with and pay the ransoms to these thugs.
Report this comment
The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar
April 13th, 2009
4:21 pm
Job well done, Mr. Obama.
Mission Accomplished.
Thank God for a decent, intelligent man as the Commander-in-Chief. It’s been a long long time.
Report this comment
Bob Barr: ‘Somali pirates — you lose’ | Independent Political Report
April 13th, 2009
4:30 pm
[...] Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Bob Barr writes in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution I’ll be writing more very shortly regarding the issue of dealing with Somali pirates, but I have [...]
Report this comment
The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar
April 13th, 2009
4:33 pm
Time to bring back the notion of the armed convoy – have merchant ships gather near the horn of Africa and provide them escorts in the form of destroyers and aircraft.
Unless these criminals have access to submarines, they lose before they start.
Report this comment
Susan Hogarth
April 13th, 2009
5:38 pm
“Armed pirates hijacking American-flag vessels and U.S. citizens are not simply “criminals,”:
Yes, they are.
“Rather these are hostile, armed actions against the United States,”
Learn some geography. This was a private ship outside of American waters. The U.S. government should not be treated as a defense force for private business.
“and if we are to maintain credibility and have any hope of preventing further such terorist acts, we must act decisively, quickly, and if necessary, harshly.”
Tell the AJC to give you a new editor – one who will reliably catch mis-spellings.
Report this comment
beki
April 13th, 2009
5:44 pm
I am sooooooooooo glad that we stood up for our fellow citizens! Thanks to the Prez,the Nav, and the Seals we killed some of those b*****ds. They have got to learn that some of us won’t be cowed by their ruthless audacity of kidnapping for the sake of ransom so they can buy bigger lethal weapons that they can turn against us. We need to “neutralize” their reason for pirating.
Report this comment
The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar
April 13th, 2009
6:25 pm
Susan is absolutely correct. These folks have no political agenda, the only agenda they have is thievery. They are muggers with guns and boats.
Report this comment
Tim Brown
April 13th, 2009
7:07 pm
President Obama made the right decision, just as President Bush would have and did. Those of you who continue to talk about having adults in charge are so totally wrong. In a few years when we have lost a large portion of our freedoms and are waiting for the government check you will see.
Report this comment
Amelia
April 13th, 2009
7:25 pm
Well Done Pres Obama and Thank you, Thank you, Thank you Navy and SEALS.
Report this comment
Ayn Rand was right
April 13th, 2009
7:32 pm
Can people please stop glorifying the President for doing his job. The Navy SEALS, along with the Captain who was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to save others, are the ones who should be glorified. Like many other things going on in our world for which he gets/takes credit, Obama had NOTHING to do with the final outcome. At best he allowed them to do the job they are qualified to do, and they did it exceptionally well.
If those of you who wildly support President Obama would lay off the extreme accolades, others of us might actually take notice when he does go above and beyond. Remember the boy who cried wolf…it works for praise as well as peril.
Report this comment
GetRealDeKalb
April 13th, 2009
8:09 pm
Enter your comments here
Report this comment
GetRealDeKalb
April 13th, 2009
8:12 pm
Ayn Rand was right?
If you had any idea of logic you would understand that it would be inconsistent to praise Nave SEALS for doing their job and not praise the President for doing his job. THe President made the right judgements as did the Navy SEALS commander and the SEALS themselves. Great job all round. We can leave it at that.
Report this comment
Ayn Rand was right
April 13th, 2009
8:31 pm
The Navy SEALS shot three for three off of a moving ship into a moving raft and did not harm the hostage. Obama said, “you have my permission to shoot”. Who went above and beyond? Give credit where credit is due. It is not inconsistent not illogical to praise people for doing something amazing in a difficult situation. If you want to give him credit for the sunrise so be it, but don’t expect it to translate into a re-election.
Report this comment
The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar
April 14th, 2009
6:55 am
Many Americans prefer the childish tantrums and antics of the previous administration to the calm rational approach that Obama has fostered. So Ayn is right, he will face a difficult re-election.
Report this comment
That Devil Forrest
April 14th, 2009
9:39 am
The president did his job. I’m glad he did his job but why such excitement over it? Are not people expected to do their job? Were people expecting that he wouldn’t do his job and now releived that he did?
I, for one, will be excited if Obama decides to adibe by the constraints of the constitution in all things. THAT is his real job, to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America. My biggest fear is that he may actually be another Lincoln and will trample the constitution underfoot and fundamentally change our country.
Thanks Mr. President for letting the military do it’s job. Keep it up.
Report this comment
Jack Allen
April 14th, 2009
11:43 am