Posts Made By: Dave Wagner

bob sharpe said:

You would have to be nuts to want your girlfriend to have a gun, period.
what's she gonna do the first time she catches you ( fill in the blank ).

Rod Kaufman said:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/02/us/background-checks-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1
PS: Would you want your girl friend learning how to shoot with a .357 magnum as her first gun? Know what the kick is like with one? (Not to mention the noise)...

Easily solved by applying a "conservative" principle:

Don't CHEAT on her!

If you do, then you must apply a "liberal" principle:

Don't get CAUGHT!

If I'm not home, and we have someone break in, I *want* my Wife to not only have, but more importantly be trained to use, a gun. But, I'm conservative, I likes my wimmen unsullied and alive...

+1

Georgia just made my short list of states to evaluate to move to/retire in in the next 3-5 years... Colorado is now OFF that list (sigh)...

"Broke into the wrong G--damned rec room, didn't ya, ya bastard!"

I always LOVED that line!

Here's my take (posted over on my FB account yesterday):


#1 - #6: Fine, no problems (but none would have stopped any of these shootings the left are all worked up about - in fact, the NRA has been saying "enforce the laws on the books for a long time now!)

#7 - Yawn. Won't do a thing except create yet another spending program and bureaucracy to sustain it... Anyone remember "This is your brain on drugs" campaigns, etc... - yep - really solved THAT problem didn't it... That said, won't harm anything, unless it is using tax dollars to send a direct (or more likely subliminal) message that "guns are bad" - in which case nix it

#8 - similar to number 7, more regulations and bureaucracy and spending on something anyone with 1/2 a brain should know: is a lock really a lock? is a safe, really safe?

#9 - really? He has the Hubris to NOW require the Federal government to trace guns used in crimes... Ummmm... weren't they already supposed to do that? Oh, I forgot, that was the whole "Guns Walking" thing with Holder. You know, where his admins policy was to PURPOSELY NOT trace/follow them and one of our DEA agents got murdered... This one is a hoot... Executive order to NOW start following laws that already exist... Typical liberal "feel good" nonsense. That said, hurts nothing.

#10 - Release a "Study" on lost and stolen guns? Like, what will THAT do. Why does it take an executive order to release it, if they already DID it?

#11 - Nominate a New director of BATFE... Huh? Um, can't he just DO that anytime? Isn't in fact that his JOB? He has to have an Executive Order to force himself to do his job? Is he admitting he hasn't?

#12 - Provide proper training to law enforcement, etc... sounds like yet more federal dollars and bureaucrats... Can't local law enforcement already DO this? Why must it be federalized (and hence cost more)? In any event - fine

#13 - What exactly does "Maximize gun violence prevention" actually MEAN? I mean really? And, aren't they already supposed to prosecute gun violence crime? We need an executive order to order the government to do the job they are already supposed to be doing. More liberal feel good nonsense. The first part, however, depending on how it is implemented could be hugely anti-freedom (or not). But it's way too vague.

#14 - good Lord. EVERYTHING means "more federal funding" to liberals, doesn't it? For research on the causes of gun violence. Tell you what, send me 1/100th of the money. I'll tell you the answer: Breakdown of the family and traditional moral values. There, saved a ton of money and solved it for you. This will accomplish precisely what every other "federal study" has accomplished... nothing but waste money and create yet another expensive bureaucracy

#15 - "challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies" (to make guns 'safer')... Um... guns are supposed to be dangerous! What is a "safe" gun? More liberal mush-headed nonsense, but not in and of itself dangerous to freedoms (yet)...

#16 and 17 - Tell doctors that it is STILL ok (now under Oblamo-care) to ask their patients about guns in the house? Yep THAT'LL prevent more massacres won't it? Sheesh, what a maroon! News Flash, they can ask all they want, but if they SHARE the answers, they're in big trouble under privacy laws! (and that is a good thing). That said, anyone with a brain just says "nope", or "none of your business"... So, once again, more liberal feel good mush-headedness that solves nothing.

#18 - What is a "School Resource Officer"? Can they be trained and carry a gun? If so, then maybe, if it's just another person to try and *reason* with the Nutters as they are gunning folks down, it's a waste of yet more taxpayer money... Won't solve a thing, other than add one more employee per school to the Democrats biggest Union: the NEA... so on that ground alone I oppose it (though it doesn't infringe on 2nd Amendment rights)

#19 - "Develop model emergency response plans" - yep that will PREVENT violence and deaths... NOT! yet more bureaucracy that accomplishes nothing. Hint, once these nutters start, the speed of the response is irrelevant. The victims are already shot. Again, this should be done at local and state levels, keep the Feds out of it. Again, though, is not a problem vis a vis 2nd Amendment. Just another liberal waste of money and creating more bureaucracy and federal jobs...

#20 to 22 - nothing to do with guns or 2nd Amendment. No comment.

#23 - A dialog on Mental Health. About time. Hint: we USED to lock these nutters up (back in the day when we didn't have mass shootings)... But, a start (probably a "sop" to the NRA; but who knows)

So in summary, much ado (mostly) about nothing. Much additional calling for more federal spending and bureaucracies. And will accomplish precisely NOTHING to resolve what they claim is the problem. (Typical)

Dave Snope said:

Barf.

Street vendors and souvenir stores across Washington, D.C. are selling posters depicting President Obama as Jesus Christ — and one national news publication called him the “Second Coming.�

Hussein, they allege, is a Biblical word meaning “good and handsome.�

“So you see, Barak was destined to be a good and handsome man that would rise like a flash of lightning to win victory in a battle against overwhelming odds,� the poster read.

so much for TODAY'S breakfast... thanks a lot... NOT

Maybe he'll be called home soon, like, say Isaiah??? I can only hope it's REAL soon... today would be wonderful in fact!

Probably not.

See, it uses facts, and logic.

Somehow, liberals would insist that the man has an income problem, not a spending problem.

By such logic, it would be just as valid to pass a law making those establishments that are "gun free zones" liable for the deaths/injuries of anyone suffering gun violence who was NOT able to defend themselves...

let the lawyers battle it out...

God help us...

Rod Kaufman said:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130213173131.htm
Pretty much what I already knew. Red brains fixating on the basic primitive fight or flight reflex-like activity, my way or the highway, everything's black and white with no shades, no compromise, pretty much what I see in the inane posts from the conservatives on the forum...

Blue and brains are an oxymoron...

After all, everyone knows that brains require oxygen, without which cells turn... Blue...

Silly lefties

Dave Snope said:


From George Mason University Mercatus Center:
The federal government would spend $3.62 trillion in 2013, the first year with sequestration, versus the $3.69 trillion projected by CBO. Total spending in FY2012 will be $3.61. By 2021, the government would spend $5.26 trillion versus the $5.41 trillion projected. Overall, without a sequester, federal spending would increase $1.8 trillion (blue line) between FY2012 and FY2013. With a sequester, federal spending would increase by $1.65 trillion (red line).

A further breakdown of the percentage of budget programs reveals that sequestration provides relatively small reductions in spending rates across the board. Between 2012 and 2021 with sequestration, defense increases 16% (vs. 23%); nondefense discretionary increases 6% (vs. 12%); Medicare increases 71% (vs. 74%); and net interest increases 160% (vs. 179%).

As we can see, under sequestration, spending in each categories would go up. The only reduction would be a reduction in the growth rate of spending—which is quite different from a spending cut.



http://mercatus.org/publication/update-federal-spending-without-sequester-cuts-fy2012-2021

Stupid liberal tricks

Rob Wiederrich said:

Just sayin...

they all have that "Big Pharma fanclub" stare, don't they?