NRA Official: Obama Wants to Outlaw Guns in 2nd Term

Sean Lengell, Washington Times, February 10, 2012

A top official with the National Rifle Association said Friday that President Obama will move to “destroy” gun rights and “erase” the Second Amendment if he is re-elected in November.

While delivering one of the liveliest and best-received speeches at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said the president’s low-key approach to gun rights during his first term was a “conspiracy to ensure re-election by lulling gun owners to sleep.”

“All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term,” he said.

“We see the president’s strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms’ freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution.”

Mr. LaPierre said the president’s two Supreme Court appointees—Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—are “two of the most rabid anti-gun justices in history.” He also accused Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of being a foe of gun rights.

And with the possibility of two or more Supreme Court justice positions opening during the next four years, the NRA official warned that gun ownership would be in jeopardy if Mr. Obama stays in office.

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Tim

    I didn`t grow up in a gun family. My mom took a yellow plastic Luger squirt gunI had bought when I was ten  and bashed it to pieces against the water heater. . But even I know that going for the guns is what will trigger (pun intended) another Lexington and Concord protocol… P.S. before “educating” me  readers should know that I would nowexpect  be able to break out of The Cherkassy pocket single handed…

    • Anonymous

      You poor kid. I had one of these puppies:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPhZsauluXM

    •  What makes the NRA believe that the GOP will not ban guns if Obama looses.  McCain is a gun grabber, Romney is too.  The taking of guns is in Obama Care that is why the Democrat-Commies, Catholic Church, and GOP all support Obama Care.  Guns are a national compelling healthcare issue.  Democrat-Commies have often stated that the only way to take guns is to make it a health issue.

      • This_Name_Doesnt_Exist

        The NRA is a sham organization.  They supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.  They’ve always had their fingers on 2A restriction.

        NRA is a donation-driven organization.  It’s not fighting gun control any harder than Susan G. Komen is fighting breast cancer.  Getting rid of the demon puts the exorcist out of a job.

        • Bon, From the Land of Babble

          You are correct.

          The NRA frequently takes political stands at odds with its gun owning members.

          For example, Under the Patriot Act, the 0bama DOJ stepped up efforts to track and profile gun owners by demanding “business records” from gun dealers.  The FBI sent out notices to gun shops and clubs reminding them that they are mandated to keep records of all customers’ identities and purchases and urging them to report to the government any suspicious behaviors such as altered appearances, paying in cash or making racist statements.

          Before the reauthorization was signed into law, Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced an amendment to protect law abiding gun owners from some of the privacy invasion provisions of the Act.  

          The NRA opposed the Rand amendment helping to ensure its failure. 

          Watch what you say or do in federally monitored gun shops and never turn your back on this government or trust them.  The 0bama administration is still  promoting a UN-sanctioned “Small Arms Treaty” which would create a global gun registry.

          An alternative organization that takes a “no compromise” position on the Second Amendment is the National Association for Gun Rights, http://www.nationalgunrights.org

          When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

          Bon

  • Anonymous

    Obama is an evil man, I will give him that.  But I am suspicious because even his own Democratic Party has plenty of relatively pro-gun folks in there.

    He has lied through and through about many things, and is more than deserving of impeachment for his invasion of Libya without a declaration of war and signing statements.  I wrote my Congressman to have him impeached.  I was very disappointed when Mr. Gerlach said no.

    I will not vote for him in November, but enough of my fellow citizens are foolish enough that he might get re-elected.  This is assuming that the election isn’t decided before the votes are actually counted!

    But as “Tim” says, I doubt this will lead to another Lexington and Concord.  Look at the airports.  The American people of the 18th century would be ashamed at the docility of their descendants.  Look at how most Americans tremble at being called “racist” and actually believe that the TSA looks out for us.  I could go on all day.

    I think a total gun-grab is unlikely, though he may place severe restrictions on the 2nd amendment just like FDR did in ’34.  We already saw what he did with Fast and Furious, and Eric Holder should be rotting in prison for the rest of his life for what he did there.

  • Another way Obama would try to turn this trick is through the executive-level bureaucracy, and not “all at once” sort of EOs and regulations, but gradual salami slicing.

    A lot of people were looking forward to Bush’s 2nd term (and a lot of libs were worried) because they thought with elections out of the way, the “real right wing” Bush would show up.  No such Bush showed up.  I get the feeling that a 2nd term Obama won’t be much worse than the first term.  After all, I’m sure Obama doesn’t want to hurt Andrew Cuomo’s chances of keeping the Presidency in Democrat hands in 2016.

  • Up to my neck in CA

    From my cold dead hands.

  • Anonymous

    Being british, I won’t make any disparaging comments about your President – it wouldn’t be polite.
    However, if Obama does outlaw gun ownership in his second term, the following website may prove useful:
    http://www.thehomegunsmith.com

    • Anonymous

      “Being British” I mean as being a foreigner; thus, it would not be polite or diplomatic to criticise  your President.

      • Impertinent

        Nor would it be polite to recognize that your entire country has capitulated to the degenerate mutts that you think you’ll “civilize” at the expense and the lives of Brits. Fools….silly PC addled fools.

        Hope the Queen looks good in a burka.

      • Have at it friend, we surely are brothers in this soup together.  It just seems that as the creme of Western civilization, that we could have done a better job at preserving what we had.  And don’t be concerned about a gun grab in this country, the traditional citizens know intuitively that will be the signal fire in the night. To save us, some part of us will be destroyed by the other and the gun will become the arbiter. 

        I follow events in Britain very closely as my family would welcome a Briton exchange student every summer.  It will certainly be a shame to see our collective peoples disappear from this earth and a new and even worse dark age curtain come down on all.

      • Jeepers.  And I’ve been calling him David CaMORON for awhile.  Have I started a diplomatic controversy?

  • Anonymous

    I am a member of the NRA and they say this stuff EVERY time a Democrat is elected president.  They use it to build membership.  It drives up the price of ammo and guns themselves. 

    With that said,  I am sure Obama would love to ban guns because so many black men are convicted felons and are not allowed to own guns…and of course it ain’t fair for me to have guns and not them !

    I can just picture all the gullible whites turning in their guns while all the criminals keep theirs! 

    I will never give up my guns.  The day they ban guns is the day I become a criminal!

    • I am a member of the NRA and they say this stuff EVERY time a Democrat is elected president.

      I wish they would get a little more ornery when a Republican is President.

      One of the bombshells that Dick Cheney dropped in his autobio was that the amicus curiae brief that the Bush White House and his Solicitor General filed with SCOTUS in the Heller case was so weak, so uninspiring, so milquetoast and so less that supportive of Mr. Heller that Cheney went and filed one himself in his technically Constitutional role as President of the Senate, and got a bunch of other Republican Senators to signed it.  When he did that, a good chunk of the White House was mad at him for doing so.

      The NRA gets flaky in its endorsements.  It endorsed Kanjorski over Lou Barletta in PA-11, as an example, and it also endorsed a lot of other somewhat pro-gun incumbent Democrats against far better Republicans in 201o.  Thankfully, most of the Republicans won.

      • The NRA has a policy of endorsing a pro-gun incumbent over an ostensibly even more pro-gun challenger because they know that challengers can promise anything, but an incumbents votes, and our loyalty to incumbent “friends,” are much more valuable than empty promises. 

        Given that, the NRA is now using votes re. federal judges, esp SCOTUS nominees, as well as votes on legislation, in deciding whom to endorse and whom to oppose. 

        The NRA has a TON of clout at the federal level and in many state capitals, yet they do so w/less than 5% of US gun owners being members! (~4M members vs ~90M US gun owners) If we could get only 10% of all US gunnies to sign up for 6 years (3 House election cycles, 1 Senate election, and 2 presidential elections), we could really roll back anti gun laws and have a lasting impact on the federal judiciary.

        So far, Obama has appointed 2 SCOTUS justices and BOTH have voted against the 2nd Amendment. If Obama is reelected and can replace one of the 5 justices on our side, we’re ….. 🙁

        • To put your first paragraph another way, if you don’t support your friends, you won’t have any friends.  I totally grok where the NRA is coming from, but I’m just not a single issue voter.

  • Here in CA, we just passed long gun registry….

    It will take effect 2014 January.

    Vote for ABBO! (Any Body But Obama)

  • Impertinent

    There really is only one obvious solution to this. Yet we’re all afraid to say it…aren’t we?

  • Impertinent

    Screw “self defense” if it means being white and showing your face in public.

    The mutts must be faced with force.

  • From Article:
    “All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term,” he said.”

    Basically a restating of what entertainer samuel jackson said the other day, only from the conservative perspective.

    The 2nd Amendment is the only realm within which conservatives have NOT acquiesced to liberal doctrineduring the Great Change in America of the last 40 years. The only battle that they’ve won. The ONLY battle.

    And it sets up  a sort of prelude to the next American civil war that will almost certainly come in the next 2 or 3 generations.

    • Anan7

      “The 2nd Amendment is the only realm within which conservatives have NOT
      acquiesced to liberal doctrineduring the Great Change in America of the
      last 40 years. The only battle that they’ve won. The ONLY battle.”

      This is totally false.  Read the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, The McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, and the Brady Act 0f 1993.  Go to NY state or California.  The 2nd amendment is on life support.

      • Marcy Fleming

         True but that’s why we have to repeal all those laws you listed.

    • Marcy Fleming

       It will be before 2 or 3 generations.

  •  The Canadian Registry will be turned over the the United States for safe keeping.  When the Brady Bill expired, the FBI was ordered to destroy their registry.  They refused to destroy it and just turned the list it over the Mexican Government for safe keeping.

  • Anonymous

    This is just another right wing fantasy, like the notions that President Obama was born in Kenya, hates America, and wants the terrorists to win.
     
    Guns are not going to be outlawed in the United States. Nevertheless, I would like for them to be treated the way automobiles are: as a right granted by the government, rather than as a right guaranteed by the Constitution. To own a gun one should be required to get a license. Every gun should be registered, and a national law enforcement agency should receive the result of a ballistics test. Whenever one gives a gun as a gift, sells a gun, loses one, or has one stolen one should be required to tell the government. If a gun is used in a crime, and a bullet is retrieved it would be possible to trace that bullet to the legal owner of the gun. 
     
    This would not keep guns away from criminals. It would make it somewhat harder for criminals to get guns, and it would give the government one more reason to arrest criminals and put them in prison. Even this won’t happen.

    • Bad analogy.  The analogue to automobiles is that to drive one on public roads, one must have a drivers license.  One can buy a car without a drivers license, but one cannot drive it on public roads.  With firearms, a carry permit is like driving the car on public roads.  One can own a firearm without taking it loaded in public, and a lot of people do.

      • Bon, From the Land of Babble

        One can buy a car without a drivers license, but one cannot drive it on public roads.

        Yes, you can if you’re an illegal alien in California!!    You also don’t need to bother with registration or insurance because those things might be “inconvenient” if you’re illegal.

        Ask Los Angeles’s Police Chief Beck and Mayor Tony Villar who both endorse “We Don’t Need NO Steenken License!!”

        (license? registration? insurance?  That’s only for us White Kulaks!!)

        Bon

      • Marcy Fleming

         Let’s privatize the roads and everything else and be done with all government licensing and permissions.

    • Marcy Fleming

       Total nonsense. Gun ownership is an absolute right like all of our other rights in the Bill of Rights and like all rights apply exclusively to individuals as there is no such thing as collective rights. The last thing we need is another monstrous DMV, driving is a natural right too, and licensing of any kind should be abolished.
      Registration is exactly how the Nazis seized guns in Germany and Occupied Europe.
      The Communists too in every country they subverted and took over.
      No one should be required to tell the government anything as that is the first step to them taking over your guns, your rights and your life.
      This has been tried in DC, NYC and Chicago and the result was that only criminals could get guns. In fact guns are used millions of times each year in the US to prevent crime, to scare off criminals. If you are in an anti-gun area like the Bay Area you not only need guns but if you scare off would be assailants the last thing you would do is notify the police. You would get hassled for defending yourself and family !
      We should not have any national law enforcement agencies a la the Gestapo or KGB.
      The FBI should be abolished as should the BATF. 99% of the FBI’s solved crimes are actually done by local police as LA Chief Parker demonstrated to Hoover many years ago.
      We have two enemies here, the Government, which as George Washington said, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Then the burgeoning Black & other crime which is again increasing rapidly and in fact half the crime in major cities like Oakland is not even reported as many cops and concerned citizens have told me.
      Engelman’s first sentence is the usual statist strawman of the Left. Notice how he lumps in the Birthers and the neocon warmongers with opponents of Obama’s statism.
      As far as terrorists go, the US is the leading terrorist state by far followed closely by Israel. Just on the sheer body count the US and Israel have killed many more civilians than any other states since the Communist Bloc thankfully collapsed.
      Also the complacent assumption peddled by Engelman AND all left-libs that we have nothing to fear from Obama’s reelection. Give me a break !
      Four more years of this bum and we will be looking like something out of Atlas Shrugged or Zimbabwe. Both Obama and Holder are black racists. Whether they hate whites is irrelevant. Obama was raised by leftist whites so maybe he has good reason to loathe them.
      But his personal psyche is not the issue here. He now thinks that he can get reelected with only 40% of the white vote while Blacks vote their usual 99% Democratic line,
      Latinos 65-70% Democratic, etc.
      Obviously if Obama picks the next Court that will be the end of the Second Amendment
      just a GOP President will end abortion rights and the Ninth Amendment.
      Obviously Obama’s politics are anti-original America to the core and is trying to replace our 60% current statism with 100% statism or whatever he can get away with.
      One final query, on a site like this why are we even arguing these points ?
      I can see it on a neocon or left-lib site but it makes no sense whatsoever here.

      • JohnEngelman

        As far as terrorists go, the US is the leading terrorist state by far followed closely by Israel.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
        – Marcy Fleming                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                               
        ————–
                                                                                                                                                                               
        Now you are agreeing with Mahmoud Abmadinejad and Osama bin Laden. 

        • Marcy Fleming

           So what ? Even a broken clock is right twice a day………….

  • Anonymous

    “All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term,” he said.

    Obama will not destroy the Second Amendment. Yes, if he gets re-elected he will definitely become more radical, as he will have nothing to lose, but that radical?  Declaring firearms illegal?

    Not likely!  That would be crazy talk! It would reversed immediately by the next POTUS. Many regions of this country, especially the South, love their guns. They are not going to give them up no matter what the government says. Firearms are on the same level as family, as in if you love your family and want to protect them, you have firearms to ensure you can protect them.

    • Anan7

      Very little changes from administration to administration.  Whatever further restrictions on the 2nd amendment Obama inflicts on us in the next four years will be cemented by the next POTUS.

      Remember that Democrats radicalize, Republicans consolidate.

      I will only vote for Ron Paul or 3rd party in November.

  • Anonymous

    Banning guns works perfectly well in other countries. It’s just the bizare US ideology that thinks there’s anything wrong about banning guns. Other white people don’t think like that. The idea that criminals will still have guns if you ban “law-abiding” (which is not the way I’d describe the people who complain about government taking their guns) citizens from having guns, is not supported by evidence.

    Some people who live surrounded by dangerous wild animals, or dangerous wild humans, need guns, but most people don’t.

    • Those other countries are almost all white, and have almost no blacks.  That’s why.

      • They also don’t have the Mexican border.

    • Marcy Fleming

       Like Nazi Germany ? Like Cuba ? Like the USSR ? Like the UK where crime is going out of sight ? It’s a major step towards dictatorship and we need guns to resist government, the greatest criminal of all, and to resist private criminals which are much worse and much more numerous than wild animals.
      The evidence in DC, NYC, Chicago and everyplace else where guns were banned fully supports the fact that only criminals can get guns when they are banned.
      See More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott.

    • Bon, From the Land of Babble

      Banning guns works perfectly well in other countries. 

      NO, it doesn’t.  According to John Lott, author of  More Guns, Less Crime:

      A recent study by the Institute of Economic Analysis in Britain on the U.K.’s total handgun ban beginning in 1997 concluded the prohibition has been counterproductive.

      The ban’s ineffectiveness was such that by the year 2000 violent crime had increased so much that England had the developed world’s highest rate of violent crime, far surpassing even the U.S.A.

      As rioters rampaged through London last summer, unarmed policemen and defenseless citizens stood by helplessly as non-White hoards burned businesses and beat up and murdered innocent residents.

      From John Lott:

      Newly released crime data from Chicago shows how Chicago’s crime rates changed after the Supreme Court struck down their gun ban.  In Chicago, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate. 

      Chicago’s then-mayor Mayor Daley foolishly predicted that we would go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle it in the streets.

      Yet when hizzoner retired he demanded five around the clock armed police body guards to protect him and him family, imperiously stating:  The safety of my family comes first!  

      In Washington DC, after “Heller” the murder rate fell two-and-a-half times faster in Washington than in the rest of the country.  Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by eight percent. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12%. 

      This after Washington DC’s then-mayor, Fenty stupidly warned: More handguns in DC will only lead to more handgun violence.

      http://tinyurl.com/3bwytxr 

      Around the world, whenever guns are banned, murder rates rise.–John Lott 

      Bon

      Image #1:  Examining how Washington DC’s crime rates have continued to fall after Heller

      Image #2:  Chicago’s murder and violent crime rates after the Supreme Court decision in June 2010 striking down Chicago’s gun laws.

  • Again, that was a result of the NRA’s single-issue existence.  They figured the Democrats would keep control of the Senate in 2010, which they did, so they wanted to be on the good side of the person who would be running the Senate for another two years.

  • loyalwhitebriton

    Well, that was a bigger response than I anticipated, both you and the others. And Thanks.
    Ok, seeing as you are actually inviting me to speak my mind on what I think of your President, it would go something like this:- I think Obama is the most shallow, conceited, egotistical, know-nothing socialist ever to have walked on the sweet earth of the New World. His treachery of the American People is only equalled by his overweening vanity, his patriotism is conspicuous by it’s very absense, and his place in American history will not be amongst the great and good, but amongst those of the most rascally and duplicitous imaginable. Obama will be remembered, by all decent Americans, and people the world over, as naught but a vacuous snake oil salesman whose only ware is rhetoric; rhetoric which, once analysed, contains only the stench of his halitosis tinged with a generous side portion of spiteful malice. In the grand scheme of American history, he is useless blot, an annoying smudge, that will, hopefully, and soon, be erased.
    Not very dry, perhaps. I’m Anglo-Celtic, and sometimes the Celtic gets the better of the Anglo. However, thank you for allowing me to get all of the above off my chest.

    • Bon, From the Land of Babble

      I think Obama is the most shallow, conceited, egotistical, know-nothing socialist ever to have walked on the sweet earth of the New World. 

      I wrote the exact same words about your Mr. Blair.

      His treachery of the American People is equalled only by his overweening vanity, his patriotism is conspicuous by its very absence 

      And I wrote this about the sniveling Mr. Brown.

      Bon

  • anon

    I disagree with you.  It was against the law for us to defy the British Empire and to store weapons that we used to fight them with at the time.  You could be executed or at least imprisoned for sedition back then, just as Gandhi was in India.  It’s also the law that we have to hire people we don’t wish to.  Are all laws good?  I don’t think so.

    • Detroit_WASP

      I agree….and disagree with all of you.  Guns are tools and in the hands of the right people, they are good.

      One of these days “something” will happen and our society will break down and I pity the people who do not have guns.  

      This country was started by angry white men with guns and I have a feeling it may end the same way.  God help us all when “it” hits the fan.

  • Worse than that, they often genuflect to the “racism” angle, both historically (disarming blacks/slaves, gee, why would anyone want to do a crazy thing like that?) and trying to claim that the disparate impact of modern day gun control is anti-black (then, why do almost all black politicians vote for these ‘anti-black’ laws?)

    Try to hustle a C-note from a middle aged urban white woman who lives close to the ghetto, and if the NRA tries to use that line, I can guaranteeing you that she’s sending that hundred bucks to Sarah Brady.

    I swear to God, if the right wing in this country had a brain, it would be dangerous.

    Again, it’s the exigencies of a single issue organization and a single issue mentality.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    Or, as the old expression goes:  

    The Second Amendment was Written to Protect the Rest.

    Bon

  • JohnEngelman

    Those who maintain that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government agree with criminals and terrorists. 

    • Sonya610

      Darn right people need to be worried about protecting themselves from the government! Do you remember Katrina?  The police and national guard were taking people’s weapons and pulling people from their homes. If the government shows up and plans to pull you from your home and throw you into a camp with a bunch of violent blacks having a gun gives you “a choice”.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd8q_rvcAP4

      • Marcy Fleming

         Reply to Engelman AND moderator why is the reply button missing on Engelman’s one sentence nonresponses ? He’s hardly four levels deep !
        Engelman, I HAVE answered you in my own words and I HAVE given refs so you can look up the full case against Krugman, that you are too incompetent or lazy to do so is NOT my problem.

    • Sure.  I’m in league with reprobates like criminals, terrorists, and people who think that Paul Krugman isn’t as half as smart as he thinks he is.

      • JohnEngelman

        Paul Krugman is an economics professor at Princeton, and a columnist for The New York Times. In 2008 he won the Nobel Prize for Economics. If he is not every bit as intelligent as he thinks he is he sure fooled a lot of people. 

        • economics professor at Princeton

          Strike One

          columnist for The New York Times

          Strike Two

          In 2008 he won the Nobel Prize for Economics

          Just high and outside, could have gone either way.

          • Marcy Fleming

             All three are strikes against him as the Times is leftwing garbage, Princeton leftwing hire reducation and the Nobel a lousy bunch of Scandinavian Socialists.

        • Marcy Fleming

           Your last sentence is true. LewRockwell.com, the George Reisman Blog and others have consistently debunked Krugman for many years.
          Krugman has been consistently wrong and fooling the NY Times readers and NPR listeners is no great feat.

          • JohnEngelman

            What has Professor Krugman been wrong about? B e specific, and document your claims. 

          • Marcy Fleming

             On everything from the causes of the current Depression from the cures for same. Read Meltdown by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
            Look up Krugman on Lew Rockwell and George Reisman blog and the Mises.com site.
            There are way too many instances to list of Krugman’s errors. It’s not a link or two, more like an encyclopedia.
            Do your own research.
            It’s like asking to show you one dead body at Auschwitz.
            There’s really too much proof.

      • JohnEngelman

        On everything from the causes of the current Depression from the cures for same. Read Meltdown by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
        Look up Krugman on Lew Rockwell and George Reisman blog and theMises.com site.
        There are way too many instances to list of Krugman’s errors. It’s not a link or two, more like an encyclopedia.
        Do your own research. 
        – Marcy Fleming
         
        ————-
         
        I asked for specific errors, not another reading list.           

      • JohnEngelman

        Your last sentence is true. LewRockwell.com, the George Reisman Blog and others have consistently debunked Krugman for many years.    
        – Marcy Fleming 

        ——–
         
        If you can’t explain their arguments in your own words you do not understand them.

      • This_Name_Doesnt_Exist

        John Maynard Engleman-
         
        What Paul Krugman advocates is essentially this:
         
        You should burn your house down because the building supply store down the street and the carpenter, electrician, and plumber that live on your block will gain income, and it will in turn stimulate the economy.  Spend spend spend!  It makes government and Federal Reserve economic indicator sheets look so good!

        If you think this sounds like a good idea, I have the match and kerosene all ready for you here. Just say the word and give me your address.
         
        He is however strangely silent on the loss of capital you will be forced to suffer as a result of this.  No wealth is created here.  Some is shuffled and some is destroyed.  Wealth is only created by thrift, or increases in productivity.  Tell me which of these is occuring in this scenario, and you’ll have succeeded in making a Keynesian out of me, something at which the school system failed for over a decade and a half.
         
        He is all but calling for open war to break out somewhere on the planet so we can turn more capital into bullets and bombs and wasted lives. All in the name of the Keynesian’s almighty goal of “stimulating aggregate demand,” even if it takes making wrenches and motorcycles and burying them in fields in the Midwest, then on to building throwaway Liberty ships faster than the Nazis and Japanese could sink them as FDR did.  The man is a crank and if it weren’t for the fact that he shills for the empire, always a lucrative pursuit, he’d be panhandling at a freeway offramp.

    • Marcy Fleming

       The government is both criminal and terrorist.

  • JohnEngelman

    I have read the United States Constitution many times. Those on either end of the  political spectrum who appeal to the Constitution imply that it has obvious meanings that their political opponents are too stupid to understand, or too dishonest to acknowledge. Actually, the Constitution is ambiguously worded. People read their various values and concerns into it, deriving different meanings. If this was not true, Supreme Court decisions would nearly always be unanimous.
     
    I prefer to see the Constitution as a guide book on how to operate a representative democracy. If the Constitution does not clearly say something, I assume it leaves the matter up to the voters. 
     
    Like most who comment here I would like more restrictions on immigration, and I would like a vigorous crackdown on illegal aliens. That does not happen because the voters are divided on the issue.
     
    Most Americans favor increasing legal immigration. A plurality favors allowing illegal immigrants to apply for legal status.
     
    http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm 

    • Marcy Fleming

       Ayn Rand put it well in The Fountainhead where one character cited a poll and another person asked him if he needed a poll to find his own opinion. Who cares about what others think ? Numbers don’t determine the truth or the morality of anything and in a constitutional republic the mob doesn’t rule. An honest person is interested in what’s right, not what the fickle mob thinks at any transient moment.
      Actually the wording is not ambiguous as most of the original Founders feared a standing army and forced the Federalists to include a Bill of Rights when they changed from the Articles to the Constitution.
      Private gun ownership was widespread from the beginning of this country. Some Emory University moron wrote a book trying to debunk this, endorsed by all the usual numbskull libs, then it was totally debunked and the lying Prof lost his tenure.
      Thank God for the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation and the John Birch Society.
      What we ought to be outlawing is the Democratic Party. Five more years of Obama and they might be hunting Democrats with dogs.
      Let’s hope so !

      • JohnEngelman

        Ayn Rand was a pompous bore. I do not care what she said. 

        • Marcy Fleming

          You are exactly projecting again. Ayn Rand was the most brilliant philosopher and literary writer that ever lived.
          As to your second sentence that is exactly how a great many of us feel about you.

      • JohnEngelman

        What we ought to be outlawing is the Democratic Party. Five more years of Obama and they might be hunting Democrats with dogs.
        Let’s hope so ! 
        – Marcy Fleming
            
        ————-
         
        Did you really write that? What you seem to want is a libertarian dictatorship. 

  • JohnEngelman

    On several occasions I have criticized the Southern Poverty Law Center on this website, expressing doubt that it has ever helped those in poverty. 

    • You don’t say, Captain Obvious.  The SPLC’s purpose was never to ameliorate poverty, its purpose was to make Morris Dees a big bag of money.

  • Marcy Fleming

     ‘Potential’ real enemy ?! FedGov has been the actual real enemy for some time, some LONG time.

  • Marcy Fleming

     It should be a RIGHT. Ex-mental patients are victims of the fraud of coercive psychiatry and ex-felons even includes tax convictions. Once you are out your full freedoms should be restored. Ergo for ex-military regardless of discharge status.

  • Marcy Fleming

     Exactly.

  • Marcy Fleming

     Utter nonsense, we have way too many tyrannical laws on the books now, that silly Good German attitude won’t do.

  • I bet you most of the stuff they turned in was inoperable junk.

    Doesn’t matter to the people that run the useless good-for-nothing buyback programs — The actual results are of no matter, the public relations stunt is the end game.

    As an aside, every time there’s about to be a “gun buyback” in St. Louis, the event is pushed rather heartily in the local black media.  I ask rhetorically:  Why are they never advertised on classical music stations?  Why not the easy listening station that’s on in every suburban office park where white women work?  Why aren’t gun buyback programs advertised on country music stations?  Though as far as that goes, I would rather be a prostitute while sitting in the pews of a church then break some serious wind than advertise a gun buyback program on a country music radio station; it would go over better.

  • Marcy Fleming

     Yes ! Yes ! Yes !

  • Marcy Fleming

     Thank you very much. I’m beginning to think it’s a waste to try to have an interchange with Mr. Engelman so when I feel that I have to respond to him I do it solely to correct the record.

  • Marcy Fleming

     Don’t turn in ANYTHING. You get on a list, they know where to confiscate your other guns later.

  • Marcy Fleming

    Exactly. There’s something off about the Likes button. If you accidentally hit it again it should simply not register the extra hit, instead it decreases you by one ! You actually have 5 Likes, Zorro,
    I had forgotten that I pushed it the other day. This needs to be fixed.

  • Marcy Fleming

     My pleasure, Harry.