• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

obama czar: outlaw guns, infiltrate dissent

I cannot view the video.
Have a transcript?
 
Goobie - no trascript, but here's the gist:

- The right to bear arms in the United States is a social movement not legally supported

- DC's legal requirement for trigger lock use of guns in their homes has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment

- The individual rights movement for gun ownership is a recent thing and fear based, not based on the Constitution

- The Supreme Court has never, since the U.S. founding, ruled that the 2nd amendment supports an individual right to own guns




Not surprising --- he's an anti-2nd amendment nut as is most of the Obama administration. Classic "say one thing" to get elected, "do another thing" once elected, nominated... whatever.
 
Goobie - no trascript, but here's the gist:

- The right to bear arms in the United States is a social movement not legally supported

- DC's legal requirement for trigger lock use of guns in their homes has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment

- The individual rights movement for gun ownership is a recent thing and fear based, not based on the Constitution

- The Supreme Court has never, since the U.S. founding, ruled that the 2nd amendment supports an individual right to own guns
All of these things are demomstrably false.
 
here in australia, we dont have the same gun laws as america, basically you have to get a liscense, police check, and alot more to get gun.

and i ask, you claim its for defense, how many times have you defended yourself using your gun?

and what are the statistics of guns used for offence vs. defence
 
here in australia, we dont have the same gun laws as america, basically you have to get a liscense, police check, and alot more to get gun.
Yes. A pity. You Aussies were once like us, and we admired you as much as you admired us.

and i ask, you claim its for defense, how many times have you defended yourself using your gun?
Why does that matter?

and what are the statistics of guns used for offence vs. defence
Here in the US, there are ~300k gun-related crimes, and ~1800k defensive gun uses each year.
 
IF you do a little research, this guy is the SCARIEST person to ever have any power in America. Seriously.
 
Yes. A pity. You Aussies were once like us, and we admired you as much as you admired us.


Why does that matter?


Here in the US, there are ~300k gun-related crimes, and ~1800k defensive gun uses each year.

fair enough, but we never admired you that much outside of parliment, and that was mosly because parliment admired you, and we changed our laws 'cause of the port arthur massacre, if i remember correctly, which may not seem like much to americans, but here we didnt have anyone to defend ourselves from once most of the aboriginals had dies from STD's and the like, and the closest country is new zealand, and the only thing they threaten is the innocence of sheep.
 
fair enough, but we never admired you that much outside of parliment...
Ask someone over the age of 60.
The people of the US and you Aussies used to share a rugged, frontier-based individualism, with self-reliiance and 'leave me alone and I will leave you alone' culture.
Not sure how or why you guys got away from that.
 
Cass Sunstein is a bit nuts.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein/index.html

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs." In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.

...

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."
 
Cass Sunstein is a bit nuts.
Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

What's nuts about that artcile? A paper while in Hahvad about government propoganda? You mean nuts that he wasted his time on the subject?

Because that sort of thing is 24/7, throughout history. Don't political parties do this day in day out? Even corporations have been caught blogging nonsense to sway public opinion, etc. Heck, I do this on a limited fashion, we all control information. We have worse examples of government abuse throughout all of our short history, and more when extended to all of history. Watergate, civil rights, failed bids to get oil cronies into the presidency...I mean, internet propoganda is about the most benign thing they would be doing with those resources.

Arguing that right to bear arms doesn't include individuals bearing firearms, seems extreme, don't get me wrong...but not nuts. And the infiltrate dissent...seems obvious, hardly conspiracy theorist.
 
What's nuts about that artcile? A paper while in Hahvad about government propoganda? You mean nuts that he wasted his time on the subject?

Because that sort of thing is 24/7, throughout history. Don't political parties do this day in day out? Even corporations have been caught blogging nonsense to sway public opinion, etc. Heck, I do this on a limited fashion, we all control information. We have worse examples of government abuse throughout all of our short history, and more when extended to all of history. Watergate, civil rights, failed bids to get oil cronies into the presidency...I mean, internet propoganda is about the most benign thing they would be doing with those resources.

Arguing that right to bear arms doesn't include individuals bearing firearms, seems extreme, don't get me wrong...but not nuts. And the infiltrate dissent...seems obvious, hardly conspiracy theorist.

I think that there would be a huge problem with the government paying teams of people to go undercover to subvert the speech of dissident groups or people who believe things that the government doesn't want them to believe. It was bad enough in the 60's when it was directed at groups that were at least theoretically a danger to the nation, but here, he's proposing that it be used against those who simply disagree with government policies. Furthermore, it could and inevitably would be used improperly, e.g. the Gruber case.

And it's not "some academic paper from Harvard," it's a paper he wrote a year and a half ago, knowing full well that he would probably be appointed to a prominent position in Obama's government.
 
Cass Sunstein is a bit nuts.

Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

In his book, Sunstein laid out what he wants to become the new bill of rights, which he calls the Second Bill of Rights:

Among his mandates are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."

Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments."

Obama's regulatory chief pushes new 'bill of rights'

No, he's ****ing insane.
 
here in australia, we dont have the same gun laws as america, basically you have to get a liscense, police check, and alot more to get gun.

and i ask, you claim its for defense, how many times have you defended yourself using your gun?

and what are the statistics of guns used for offence vs. defence

well... i have not defended myself with my guns (yet)...
i also have not marched in open protest of my government...

BUT - i have the right.

and THAT is the issue.
 
He's no nuttier than Ramsey Clarke. But he's actually in the halls of power at present.
 
It's simple.

I live in Texas, and break-ins are rare when people are actually in their homes. Why? Because the intruder knows that there is a VERY likely chance that they'll be walking into the business end of a shotgun and a scared, angry father trying to protect his family.

The rule is here: shoot until you have no bullets left. Make sure the intruder is dead so you don't have to waste your time in a court room. The Castle (sp?) Law will protect you from there. If someone had the nerve to break into my house, I wouldn't hesitate a bit. If you threaten my kids, I'll enjoy every pull of the trigger.

Without the right to bear arms, intruders need only have a gun to walk into a house and pretty much have their way with you, your family, and your belongings.

It's not about "how many crimes were prevented". It's about how many crimes were never attempted in the first place because the intruder was afraid to try.
 
I’ve tried to be very fair and open minded in regards to Obama and tried not to jump on meaningless minutia that others had harped on. That said, one of my biggest issues with him during the run up to the election and one that got people on the left most mad at me was in regards to Reverend Wright and to a lesser degree Ayers.

Now, my reasoning for being bothered by this was not necessarily the same as most outspoken people on the right. I did not think it showed Obama to be a closet racist or someone that “hates” America. I saw it as something far simpler, but far more pressing. I saw it as a symbol of either Obama’s very poor judge of character OR a sign that he shares those views, one of the same.

You see, even if we are to believe he didn’t realize what Reverend Wright, his mentor, believed in or was preaching, it still calls into question his judgement. Leading up to the election that judge of character, his choices of who he puts around him as advisors and trusted confidants, was one of the things that worried me most about Obama.

Since taking office?

Sunstein, Van Jones, Jennings. All the tax issues with other appointments. Saying he’s going to “change” politics as usual and enter a time of post partisanship and immediately bringing in Rham Emanuel as his Chief of Staff.

He has shown, time and time again, to either have an incredibly HORRIBLE judge of character, a horrendous vice for a President, or shown that these people are actually who he ideologically sides with.

Both options bother me greatly.
 
here in australia, we dont have the same gun laws as america, basically you have to get a liscense, police check, and alot more to get gun.

and i ask, you claim its for defense, how many times have you defended yourself using your gun?

and what are the statistics of guns used for offence vs. defence

Ask, and ye shall recieve.... by the truckload:


the Kleck Study:
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Number Of Protective Uses Of Firearms In U.S: Projected at a minimum of 2.5 million cases annually, equal to 1% of total U.S. population each year. Criminal assailants are killed by their victims or others in only about 0.1%, and wounded in only about 1.0% of incidents as described above. Most such crimes are prevented by mere presence of a firearm in the hands of an intended victim.(Dr. Gary Kleck, PhD, Florida State University, Targeting Guns, 1998)


A 1993 Gallup Poll study (hardly a conservative partisan group) found a likely annual rate of defensive gun use (DGU) of 777,153 per year in the US.
An LA Times 1994 study found an implied national DGU of 3,609,682.

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).

Data from the NCVS imply that each year there are only about 68,000 defensive uses of guns in connection with assaults and robberies, [16] or about 80,000 to 82,000 if one adds in uses linked with household burglaries. [17] These figures are less than one ninth of the estimates implied by the results of at least thirteen other surveys, summarized in Table 1, most of which have been previously reported. [18] The NCVS estimates imply that about 0.09 of 1% of U.S. households experience a defensive gun use (DGU) in any one year, compared to the Mauser survey's estimate of 3.79% of households over a five year period, or about 0.76% in any one year, assuming an even distribution over the five year period, and no repeat uses. [19]
The strongest evidence that a measurement is inaccurate is that it is inconsistent with many other independent measurements or observations of the same phenomenon; indeed, some would argue that this is ultimately the only way of knowing that a measurement is wrong. Therefore, one might suppose that the gross inconsistency of the NCVS-based estimates with all other known estimates, each derived from sources with no known flaws even remotely substantial enough to account for nine-to-one, or more, discrepancies, would be sufficient to persuade any serious scholar that the NCVS estimates are unreliable.
...The NCVS was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun.


The Kleck study concluded that there were possibly as many as 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, many of which involved no shots fired or no one injured, and many of which were not reported:
The most technically sound estimates presented in Table 2 are those based on the shorter one-year recall period that rely on Rs' first-hand accounts of their own experiences (person-based estimates). These estimates appear in the first two columns. They indicate that each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns.

These Wikipedia articles are good sources of general information on concealed-carry permits and related issues.
They include information from both pro and anti perspectives.

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law.[61]

Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,408,907 permits in twenty one years, has revoked only 166 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,500 permits for any reason.[62]

More Guns, Less Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Lott's study is not without controversy, but despite nit-picking about techincal proceedures remains siginficant:
Lott examines the effects of shall issue laws on violent crime across the United States.

His conclusion is that shall issue laws, which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, steadily decrease violent crime. He explains that this result makes sense because criminals are deterred by the risk of attacking an armed victim. As more citizens arm themselves, the danger to criminals increases.


From an excellent summary page:

Firearms as Used in Crime
Annual Criminal Abuse of Firearms Nationally: Less than 0.2% of all firearms, and less than 0.4% of all handguns. More than 99.8% of all guns, and 99.6% of all handguns are NOT used in criminal activity in any given year.(BATF, FBI)
Crime in the United States
Chance of Any Single Individual Being a Victim of Violent Crime In Their Lifetime: Currently about 65 to 70%, depending on age, profession, lifestyle, geographic and demographic factors.(US DoJ, FBI UCR)

Firearms Accidents and Firearms Safety Education
Fatal Firearms Accidents for All Ages Annually: 1,134 nationwide in 1996. Rate of 0.4 per 100M population. Represents a roughly 90% decrease from record high in 1904. Accident rate is down by 65% since 1930, while U.S. population has doubled and number of privately-owned firearms has quadrupled. Compare to other types of fatal accidents, for all ages: Motor Vehicles 16.7/100M, Falls 4.8/100M, Poisoning 4.0/100M, Drowning 1.7/100M, Fires 1.6/100M, Choking 1.1/100M.(National Safety Council, National Center for Health Statistics, BATF, US Census)

Fatal Firearms Accidents for Children 14 and Under Annually: 138 nationwide in 1996. About 3% of all fatal accidents under age 14. Represents a 75% decrease from record high of 550 in 1975. Compared to other types of fatal accidents for children: Motor Vehicles 44%, Fires 16%, Drowning 14%, Choking 4.5%.(Nat'l Safety Council, Nat'l Center for Health Statistics)

Gun control laws effects on criminals, specifically the Brady law and NICS:
Actual Effect on Criminals:
Nationally convictions for 'attempt to purchase' by disqualified individuals under Brady now total 7 since early 1994. There are now in excess of 20,000 federal, state and local gun laws on the books, yet few if any have proven clearly effective in reducing violence or a criminal's access to firearms. Some 93% of firearms used in crime are reported as stolen or come from some other uncontrollable source.(DPS/BCI, US DoJ, BATF)


What the Founders of the US said about guns:
Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)

On what is the militia:

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
 
Back
Top Bottom