F#*& GOP

[YVK]

So those House pillars of right budgeting and fiscal responsibility have just passed a fiscal cliff bill, throwing high earners under the tax bus AND adding 4 trillion in spending over next 10 years.

They have done absolutely nothing they said they would do, or what their program says they are supposed to be doing.

I will never vote "lesser evil" choice in my life. There is no lesser evil. There are those who stay their principles, and then there are the rest. I hope all of you who are the constituency of those 85 GOP reps remember this.

[TCinVA]

So those House pillars of right budgeting and fiscal responsibility have just passed a fiscal cliff bill, throwing high earners under the tax bus AND adding 4 trillion in spending over next 10 years.

They have done absolutely nothing they said they would do, or what their program says they are supposed to be doing.


They lost the last election, bro.

Elections have consequences. When liberals lose elections they remain defiant and do whatever they want. When they win, they are triumphant and do whatever they want. When Republicans lose elections they get brow-beaten with the message that they'd better compromise and in reality when they control one segment of one branch of government with lots of wobbly types who are more than willing to vote with the other team in the interest of appearing "bipartisan" in the era of the other team appearing to be on top, there's only so much they realistically can do.

If we went over "the cliff" it was going to be spun as them holding us all hostage so they could get tax cuts for the rich. Obama wasn't going to budge an inch. He has no reason to. He won, and he can count on the media to play his story 24/7 and set the narrative. The narrative is complete fertilizer, but I think we all got a pretty clear lesson a couple of months ago about how little objective reality matters in politics.

Republicans remember how those advantages worked for Clinton during the .gov shutdown some years ago and I'd wager a significant number of the defectors were hoping to avoid that.

Politics is chess, not checkers. Our side is particularly bad at the short term strategy that actually dictates how Washington works.

Was this a good move? Not in my estimation. If we had legislative leadership that was as ruthless and cutthroat as the other team it might make a difference...although we tried playing hardball too, and that ended up with stuff like "The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas" and similar nonsense. The public didn't like that.

I've never been impressed with Bohner's leadership abilities, but the R caucus is a particularly difficult one to effectively lead. A chunk of them want to get along with the other team because they're in districts with weak majorities and their finger is perpetually in the wind. A chunk of them want to die on the hill of principle...but also tend to come from districts where they easily won reelection. A chunk of them will do just about anything to get into the media's favorable spotlight because they have higher ambitions.

The situation we face wouldn't be significantly improved with fewer R's in the chamber, though. The outcome of the "cliff" nonsense was determined on election day. It could have been handled better, I believe...but not much. Obama has proven over and over again that he is incapable of shame and there's no lie too big for his administration. His loyal lap dogs in the press will repeat the lie until it's truth in many minds.

R's don't really have an effective means of fighting that yet.

[JHC]

They lost the last election, bro.

Elections have consequences. When liberals lose elections they remain defiant and do whatever they want. When they win, they are triumphant and do whatever they want. When Republicans lose elections they get brow-beaten with the message that they'd better compromise and in reality when they control one segment of one branch of government with lots of wobbly types who are more than willing to vote with the other team in the interest of appearing "bipartisan" in the era of the other team appearing to be on top, there's only so much they realistically can do.

If we went over "the cliff" it was going to be spun as them holding us all hostage so they could get tax cuts for the rich. Obama wasn't going to budge an inch. He has no reason to. He won, and he can count on the media to play his story 24/7 and set the narrative. The narrative is complete fertilizer, but I think we all got a pretty clear lesson a couple of months ago about how little objective reality matters in politics.

Republicans remember how those advantages worked for Clinton during the .gov shutdown some years ago and I'd wager a significant number of the defectors were hoping to avoid that.

Politics is chess, not checkers. Our side is particularly bad at the short term strategy that actually dictates how Washington works.

Was this a good move? Not in my estimation. If we had legislative leadership that was as ruthless and cutthroat as the other team it might make a difference...although we tried playing hardball too, and that ended up with stuff like "The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas" and similar nonsense. The public didn't like that.

I've never been impressed with Bohner's leadership abilities, but the R caucus is a particularly difficult one to effectively lead. A chunk of them want to get along with the other team because they're in districts with weak majorities and their finger is perpetually in the wind. A chunk of them want to die on the hill of principle...but also tend to come from districts where they easily won reelection. A chunk of them will do just about anything to get into the media's favorable spotlight because they have higher ambitions.

The situation we face wouldn't be significantly improved with fewer R's in the chamber, though. The outcome of the "cliff" nonsense was determined on election day. It could have been handled better, I believe...but not much. Obama has proven over and over again that he is incapable of shame and there's no lie too big for his administration. His loyal lap dogs in the press will repeat the lie until it's truth in many minds.

R's don't really have an effective means of fighting that yet.

Exactly. There is no short term game the House can play all by itself. The GOP base continually shoots itself in the foot ripping it's hair and teeth out over what one half of one branch of government can't do. I'm sliding into the LIB camp; short for Let It Burn.

[TCinVA]

What really concerns me (because our fiscal situation is too screwed up to have any hope of fixing anytime soon) is whether or not this portends the future of gun control legislation. Hopefully not. I would imagine that the NRA-ILA is in communication with lots of D's and R's reminding them that pissed off gun owners show up in mid-term elections.

[JHC]

What really concerns me (because our fiscal situation is too screwed up to have any hope of fixing anytime soon) is whether or not this portends the future of gun control legislation. Hopefully not. I would imagine that the NRA-ILA is in communication with lots of D's and R's reminding them that pissed off gun owners show up in mid-term elections.

Well the GOP's base is in a foul mood. I certainly am. If the party fails them on gun bans then what good are they at all? Their shooting blanks on fiscal issues may incent them to hold the line on guns so as not to hammer in their final nails themselves. That's a theory anyway.

[TCinVA]

Well the GOP's base is in a foul mood. I certainly am. If the party fails them on gun bans then what good are they at all? Their shooting blanks on fiscal issues may incent them to hold the line on guns so as not to hammer in their final nails themselves. That's a theory anyway.

The gun issue isn't a D/R issue exclusively...as lots of D's come from districts where the NRA can motivate enough people to show up to the polls to vote for the not-D guy just on the issue of guns.

...or at least that's been the theory.

[John Ralston]

What we should be asking is where are all of Obama's spending cuts that he "Supposedly" had on the table. He was always quick to point out problems with the GOP plan and always talked about his cuts, but never gave specifics in any of his press conferences. He is a master of Bull Shit. How F'n dumb must he be to not demand that the Dems in the Senate (and his VP) slash some spending. Obviously it was all smoke and mirrors.

[Tamara]

The gun issue isn't a D/R issue exclusively...as lots of D's come from districts where the NRA can motivate enough people to show up to the polls to vote for the not-D guy just on the issue of guns.

Dunno.

Indiana's a pretty strong pro-gun state, and the Dem. who just won the Senatorial race here after Mourdock shot himself in the foot was good on 2A laws during his congresscritter days. Joe Donnelly voted for national CCW reciprocity and to reform DC's gun laws, earning him an A from the NRA and coming by it honestly; he's a Stupak-esque Democrat, a socially-conservative Catholic from a blue-collar rust-belt district, and now he's making noises that he's willing to rethink his position on gun laws.

I guess the DNC rang his phone more times than the NRA?

[YVK]

They lost the last election, bro. .

And they will continue losing them every four years for as long as I can see.

A party that doesn't adhere to its principles will not do well, they have nothing to show to their voter base. This was their chance to prove they have a bone, and do the right thing. At least control some spendings.

I am looking forward to AWB.

[BaiHu]

What we should be asking is where are all of Obama's spending cuts that he "Supposedly" had on the table. He was always quick to point out problems with the GOP plan and always talked about his cuts, but never gave specifics in any of his press conferences. He is a master of Bull Shit. How F'n dumb must he be to not demand that the Dems in the Senate (and his VP) slash some spending. Obviously it was all smoke and mirrors.

What? 60 billion a year in add'l tax revenues (that includes a 2% payroll tax increase) against a trillion dollars in deficit spending isn't enough compromise for you John? :rolleyes:

Plus we'll be growing at almost 2%! YIPPEEE!!

[Pennzoil]

Well the GOP's base is in a foul mood. I certainly am. If the party fails them on gun bans then what good are they at all? Their shooting blanks on fiscal issues may incent them to hold the line on guns so as not to hammer in their final nails themselves. That's a theory anyway.

Rumors and emails are already going around on the GOP side that they are going to give in on the AWB bill.:mad:

http://docthompsonshow.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/the-republicans-have-already-given-in/

[Kyle Reese]

Rumors and emails are already going around on the GOP side that they are going to give in on the AWB bill.:mad:

http://docthompsonshow.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/the-republicans-have-already-given-in/

I certainly hope that's not true, because it would relegate the GOP to the dustbin of history if they did that.

[John Ralston]

I certainly hope that's not true, because it would relegate the GOP to the dustbin of history if they did that.

Agreed...As it is now (and for almost a decade), I have been quite vocal with some of my friends who are Dems, that if they would put a truly Pro-Gun candidate (for President) on the ticket I would vote for them. It wouldn't even be the lesser evil, since the GOP hasn't had a decent candidate in a LONG time.

[Pennzoil]

I hope it's not true also but who knows anymore.

[Kyle Reese]

I hope it's not true also but who knows anymore.

I'd never vote for another (R) again if they sell us down the river on the 2A. No reason to. I'll change my affiliation to Green.

[Pennzoil]

I'd never vote for another (R) again if they sell us down the river on the 2A.

100% Agree

[Spr1]

I wonder if our country will emerge from this decade in any recognizable form?

[JV_]

The letters were from someone in a "leadership" position. Apparently, there are some meetings tonight about leadership issues. Who's in a leadership position right now might not be there on Monday.

[Spr1]

New leadership is needed.

[Dolemite]

Don't get too upset yet, the spending cuts will be tied to the debt ceiling negotiations.

[JConn]

Another person here, if republicans screw us on 2a, I will be voting libertarian from here on out.

[Spr1]

Don't get too upset yet, the spending cuts will be tied to the debt ceiling negotiations.

That did not work out so well last time......

[YVK]

Don't get too upset yet, the spending cuts will be tied to the debt ceiling negotiations.

They'll play exactly the same card. Dems will say we need more debt otherwise middle class / entire country will suffer badly and GOP would be responsible for that. The GOP will fold, as they've done time and time again. The early statement from the WH was that "debt freeze would be more damaging than fiscal cliff and he wouldn't negotiate like he did last time".

[JHC]

Don't get too upset yet, the spending cuts will be tied to the debt ceiling negotiations.

That's my take also. We want this to be like boxing with knockout blows but it's a LONG game of chess. That does not apply to the line in the sand nature of the 2A which merely requires princpled stubborness by the House.

[RoyGBiv]

Let me try this out on y'all. I'm not sure I believe it yet, but, here goes...

Perhaps we should look at this tax deal as a "win"...
The 2012 tax structure was created under GW Bush. He reduced rates from Clinton-era levels where top earners paid nearly 44% on regular income before deductions. The Bush deal lowered taxes for everyone, to a top-earner rate around 37% (nominally, before deductions and not factoring in the lower rate on Cap Gains). The deal struck this week makes the Bush rates permanent for 99% of Americans. It sets the bar firmly at a low rate (not as low as pre-16th, granted). Top earners get stuck with a rate that rises to just under 40% (lower than Clinton era). Cap gains rates remain at 15% for 99% of us and rises to 20% for taxpayers with incomes above $400/$450K) (not including the Obamacare 3.8% on everyone. :mad:) The deal makes permanent the ~$5M exemption from Estate and Gift taxes (although the rate goes up to 40% above that) and it permanently fixes and indexes the AMT.

How is this a win?
This weeks deal makes the majority of Bush cuts permanent and even for top earners ("the 1%") the revised rates are less than during Clinton. We also get to say that "since we caved on taxes, we're gonna be tougher on spending".

Please don't get me wrong... I'm angry and disappointed about increasing revenue on the backs of those already paying more than their "fair share". It's wrong, it's bad for all of us. But it's what we have. Elections have consequences.

Especially troubling is Congresses childish avoidance of the real problem, SPENDING. But now we find ourselves in the situation where revenues are settled and spending will be addressed by February. Can we change the 41 to 1 revenue increases to spending cuts from this weeks deal into something resembling sanity?

Am I crazy to see a silver lining in this deal or just grasping at straws?
Fixing spending will be the key.

[SecondsCount]

Good points Roy.

Another thing to remember is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. 151 Republicans voted against it, and so did 16 Democrats.

The big disappointment for me was the lack of spending cuts. Maybe they are waiting until the debt ceiling negotiations to trim the fat.

[JV_]

The letters were from someone in a "leadership" position. Apparently, there are some meetings tonight about leadership issues. Who's in a leadership position right now might not be there on Monday.

Sounds like it'll be Boehner for Speaker, and he'll win handily.

[YVK]

Am I crazy to see a silver lining in this deal or just grasping at straws?
Fixing spending will be the key.

There is always something positive to be seen, but I don't know what's positive here.
I don't know if locking in the tax rates is a good thing.
My opinion, which I am sure will not be shared by many, is that taxes needed to be raised on everyone. I don't believe that spending problem will be solved at the Hill. Both parties have spent, not just one. Having everyone see their taxes go up so we can cover the expenses seems like the only way to make every tax payer understand how much we spend. When every tax payer has their skin in the game, then we can hope for a national attitude adjustment.
Instead, 99% are now locked into status quo, and continue not to care; many even cheer that upper 1% got dinged. The extra revenue from upper group will provide some cash flow to keep f-d up system alive for a bit. Once it dries up, they'll get hit again, as this is a clear taxation without representation group. So, I am not much optimistic.

The only positive I see is that GOP now has a play card: OK, we compromised, you got your tax raise, now keep your word about spending cuts. Unfortunately, I don't think they are capable of playing it, not with current leadership.

[joshs]

My opinion, which I am sure will not be shared by many, is that taxes needed to be raised on everyone.

I'm not positive, but I think everyone making more than about 50k will see some increase in their taxes under the deal. It will certainly be a more significant increase on top earners though.

I don't think the "permanence" of marginal tax rates is worth anything either. The prior rates were never permanent and I believe they were the longest lived rates we've ever had.

[YVK]

I'm not positive, but I think everyone making more than about 50k will see some increase in their taxes under the deal. It will certainly be a more significant increase on top earners though.



The best I understand it is not through marginal rates, but payroll tax or something. I don't know if the difference would be big enough for most people to give it a thought "why?"
I hope to be wrong.

[BWT]

You know what slays me, the top earners (1%) aren't a bunch of dudes driving ferraris drinking Starbucks. It's the freaking businesses that employ the 99%.

This is bad, less bad certainly, but this mindset of screw the rich... Well let me ask you this, how many of you work for a company that's owned by a poor man?

ETA: The only mega rich that aren't in business are celebrities and athletes, you don't find pallets of money, you earn them

[Chemsoldier]

And they will continue losing them every four years for as long as I can see.

A party that doesn't adhere to its principles will not do well, they have nothing to show to their voter base. This was their chance to prove they have a bone, and do the right thing. At least control some spendings.

I am looking forward to AWB.

I always thought the Republican Party was supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility.

While I think the right path to fiscal responsibiltiy is lower spending and minimal taxes, in the event that your opposition is forcing spending you dont want, might insisting on a balanced budget be the right answer? The People will continue to vote for bread and circuses as long as it isnt kicking them in the wallet.

I have voted Republican many times and have been a registered Republican for a decade though I have serious libertarian leanings. But a dogmatic commitment to low taxes decoupled from fiscal responsibiltiy is madness.

President Obama had a personal hand in these negotiations and if the economy tanks further or stagnates it will be seen much more as his and his party's fault now than it would if the economy tanked after a failure to come to a deal on the fiscal cliff. In that event it would be seen by a growing segment of the population as negative consequences for the nation after a long pattern of Republican obstructionism. It doesnt matter if its true or not (though there is enough truth to make them look bad).

Votes will not be pulled to your side by moving further to your party's extreme. However you can carefully use blame to sway people, "We tried it your way when we had no choice and told you it was dumb, and now looked what happened....vote for us this time!"

[SecondsCount]

The best I understand it is not through marginal rates, but payroll tax or something. I don't know if the difference would be big enough for most people to give it a thought "why?"
I hope to be wrong.

The Social Security Tax was increased from 4.2 to 6.2%. For the average person making $50K a year, their take home will be about $85 less a month.

The elite don't pay Social Security. ;)

[YVK]

The elite don't pay Social Security. ;)

I think you are correct. I worked at one place in Chicago that was SS tax exempt, forgot what grounds, I think being a municipal or county entity.

[littlejerry]

The GOP should have dropped the tax debate after a few weeks and moved on to spending.

"ok, you win, what about the remaining 90% of the deficit?"

Unfortunately most of the GOP is just as terrified of ACTUAL spending cuts as the dems are. And most of the population is too stupid to realize that this is a MATH problem, not a political one.

The really sad and frightening thing is that a lot of hard core liberals aknowledge the futility of trying to raise more revenue by taxing the "rich", but they still argue for it because they think it is wrong for people to have "too much"

I'm afraid the free shot army is only getting larger and more brazen.

[Tamara]

I'm afraid the free shot army is only getting larger and more brazen.

Oh, it's not just the "free shot army": From farmers to energy companies to defense contractors and the military, everybody's got Their Special Part Of The Budget that can't be touched.

We can't bounce checks for EC-130s or Agricultural Risk Protection any more than we can for EBTs or AFDC.

We're all in the cannibal pot now, and everyone wants a bite of everyone else, but nobody wants to be bitten.

[littlejerry]

Oh, it's not just the "free shot army": From farmers to energy companies to defense contractors and the military, everybody's got Their Special Part Of The Budget that can't be touched.

We can't bounce checks for EC-130s or Agricultural Risk Protection any more than we can for EBTs or AFDC.

We're all in the cannibal pot now, and everyone wants a bite of everyone else, but nobody wants to be bitten.

Damn auto correct. Free shit army.

As you said, everyone is complicit. Seniors want free health care, students want free loans, families want tax brakes on their mortgage. The headline making the rounds on the new healthcare law is that "80%" of participants will be elligable for federal subsidies in the new state based exchanges.

Everyone's cow is going to be slaughtered. We do it now or we wait until the market forces it.

Don't know why some people struggle with this concept:
The. Money. Isn't. There.

[Odin Bravo One]

I just want what was promised to me in exchange for services rendered.

[Kevin B.]

Me too.

[Chris Rhines]

Me three, but I know that I'm not going to get it. Those promises that the government made us were never in good faith. They're just trying to buy our obedience for a little while longer.

[Haraise]

Oh, it's not just the "free shot army": From farmers to energy companies to defense contractors and the military, everybody's got Their Special Part Of The Budget that can't be touched.

We can't bounce checks for EC-130s or Agricultural Risk Protection any more than we can for EBTs or AFDC.

We're all in the cannibal pot now, and everyone wants a bite of everyone else, but nobody wants to be bitten.

...all to the cries of 'be realistic,' 'be pragmatic,' 'vote for only three percent more cannibalism rather than five,' from many the people that might have opposed it.

It's interesting to see 'I'll vote libertarian if I no longer have any capacity to defend my freedom/have it greatly reduced.' Hopeful, if rather after the fact.

[Odin Bravo One]

The reality is that very few people are equipped with the tools necessary to defend "their freedom".......it's going to take a lot more than an AR15 if it ever comes to that.

[Haraise]

The reality is that very few people are equipped with the tools necessary to defend "their freedom".......it's going to take a lot more than an AR15 if it ever comes to that.

A lot more.

A full library and a voracious mind is a good start, but a hundred million guns in civilian hands isn't bad either.

[RoyGBiv]

A lot more.

A full library and a voracious mind is a good start, but a hundred million guns in civilian hands isn't bad either.

I'd like to believe THIS (http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/) describes what would happen during any attempt at confiscation, but I'm not betting the house on it.

Lots of LE and .mil here... Do you disagree with Mr. Howe?
A "No" would help me sleep a little better... :D

[Shokr21]

I'd like to believe THIS (http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/) describes what would happen during any attempt at confiscation, but I'm not betting the house on it.

Lots of LE and .mil here... Do you disagree with Mr. Howe?
A "No" would help me sleep a little better... :D

I think Mr. Howe's article is a very good summation of what would occur.

I'm glad I live in the midwest, where the sheriff sits a row behind me and the chief of police sits two rows in front of me in church, where my buddies are like minded outdoorsmen, military officers, nco's and junior enlisted.

I just don't understand how we can make such an excellent logical argument for no more restrictions and the other side can just plug their ears with their fingers and scream "lalalala", truly boggles my mind.

[Odin Bravo One]

A lot more.

A full library and a voracious mind is a good start, but a hundred million guns in civilian hands isn't bad either.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v690/SavageHunter/th_Dontbringarifletoatankbattleshortversion_zps26f 7203b.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v690/SavageHunter/Dontbringarifletoatankbattleshortversion_zps26f720 3b.mp4)

It is good in theory.



I agree with Paul Howe in concept. At least in so far as a drastic, sudden seizure of arms and being invaded by the UN or a foreign nation. However, the current situation, and potential ban on guns, ammunition, magazines, registration, NFA, etc., is not likely to invoke the response he writes about. It might? I don't have a crystal ball.

Additionally........the people he speaks of, the "communities" are dispersed and need leadership, coordination, supply & logistics of their own (which is what is being threatened right now), etc., etc., ad naseum. By the time they get around to the "seizing" part, the backside of it will have been accomplished. Anyone talking about revolt, revolution, blah blah blah on the internet is going to get quiet visits early, effectively neutralizing potential leadership and organization. Long before the black helicopters start showing up.

And as we all know, there are plenty of people who talk out of their ass on the internet.............how many of the "from my cold, dead fingers" do you honestly believe are going to actually show up to the fight? Some will, sure. But will enough?

It has happened before, and people dismiss it because the people involved were "fanatics". Branch Dividian Compound. Ruby Ridge, ID. Little baby Gonzales. Piece by piece. Bit by bit. Little by little.

How many of us are considered "fanatics"?

[SouthNarc]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v690/SavageHunter/th_Dontbringarifletoatankbattleshortversion_zps26f 7203b.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v690/SavageHunter/Dontbringarifletoatankbattleshortversion_zps26f720 3b.mp4)



And as we all know, there are plenty of people who talk out of their ass on the internet.............how many of the "from my cold, dead fingers" do you honestly believe are going to actually show up to the fight? Some will, sure. But will enough?

I think the usual 10% will step up and carry the other 90%.

That's still a shitload to deal with.

[LOKNLOD]

Piece by piece. Bit by bit. Little by little.

I would love to believe Howe on this. Unfortunately I think Sean is close to the truth as well. Frog in a pot, camel in your tent, pick your allegory.

The current debate is, in its own way, serving as proof that the 2nd amendment not only works for it's real intended purpose - empowering the populace against tyranny - but also that is as relevant today as ever. There is a lot of momentum right now to decimate the private ownership of arms. Why can't it be just be done? Because we've still got friggin guns, that's why. For all our piss poor job of articulating why we keep the right to bear arms, we've stood firmly on that right being enumerated in the founding documents of our government. It's the major hurdle to force anyone disarming us to either do it slowly and openly through the political process, or do it viciously in a way that would bring the whole house down. To swiftly and decisively act in such a manner would be messy. It wouldn't necessarily be some great uprising where the people took their country back, but either way it would just be a bloody f'ing mess. Which is why they're forming committees and scheming how they can chip away at things without really upsetting everyone...which is hopefully giving us time to fight and win the battle in the legislature with words rather than in our streets with bullets.

[TGS]

I think the usual 10% will step up and carry the other 90%.

That's still a shitload to deal with.

Was this your experience during Katrina?

[Haraise]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v690/SavageHunter/th_Dontbringarifletoatankbattleshortversion_zps26f 7203b.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v690/SavageHunter/Dontbringarifletoatankbattleshortversion_zps26f720 3b.mp4)

It is good in theory.



I agree with Paul Howe in concept. At least in so far as a drastic, sudden seizure of arms and being invaded by the UN or a foreign nation. However, the current situation, and potential ban on guns, ammunition, magazines, registration, NFA, etc., is not likely to invoke the response he writes about. It might? I don't have a crystal ball.

Additionally........the people he speaks of, the "communities" are dispersed and need leadership, coordination, supply & logistics of their own (which is what is being threatened right now), etc., etc., ad naseum. By the time they get around to the "seizing" part, the backside of it will have been accomplished. Anyone talking about revolt, revolution, blah blah blah on the internet is going to get quiet visits early, effectively neutralizing potential leadership and organization. Long before the black helicopters start showing up.

And as we all know, there are plenty of people who talk out of their ass on the internet.............how many of the "from my cold, dead fingers" do you honestly believe are going to actually show up to the fight? Some will, sure. But will enough?

It has happened before, and people dismiss it because the people involved were "fanatics". Branch Dividian Compound. Ruby Ridge, ID. Little baby Gonzales. Piece by piece. Bit by bit. Little by little.

How many of us are considered "fanatics"?

Fanatic, extremist, sure. All those words mean is 'having a full and complete devotion to one's beliefs.' That can be bad with bad beliefs, or good with good ones. Smearing that word just leads to a grey mess of nothingness, such as today's politics.

The video was... a horrible idea. Taking no cover? Not running after a single shot? Right at street level? This isn't a country of muslims that go out on jobs to die. Hunters that can sit all day, take a shot and leave until a day, week or month later by the thousands would be the actual issue.

[SouthNarc]

Was this your experience during Katrina?


No gun confiscation in MS. dude! That was a New Orleans thing.

No what I was referring to was that usually 90% of any given group are usually carried by the other 10% when shit gets tough. In that regard, I definitely CAN speak about Katrina since our command staff completely abandoned their posts and tended to their own families and homes.

Not my guys....not me.

[Joe in PNG]

"For should you merely strip them of their wealth, arms still remain to them, or if you deprive them of their weapons, rage will supply them..."
-Machiavelli, Discourses on Livius, ch XXIV

[TGS]

No gun confiscation in MS. dude! That was a New Orleans thing.

No what I was referring to was that usually 90% of any given group are usually carried by the other 10% when shit gets tough. In that regard, I definitely CAN speak about Katrina since our command staff completely abandoned their posts and tended to their own families and homes.

Not my guys....not me.

Out of 100, 10 shouldn't be there, 80 are just extra targets, and the last 10 actually carry the day. Gotcha, totally was following on that.

I was under the false impression, however, that you were working in N.O. during the stability operations from the hurricane that was caused by George Bush.

The reason I brought it up is because gun confiscation did happen during Katrina, and none of the badasses who talk shit on the internet ended up doing anything. I guess one could argue, "well, the confiscation was wrong, but it was during a storm cleanup and for the good of the people, so I left my spartan shield and dildo at home in that instance and let the man slide."

Just like most middle class white dudes have some pre-planned, idealistic, chivalric, totally dumbass image of what their gunfight is obviously going to look like when they finally draw their CCW, I think a lot of people have a preconceived notion of what gun confiscation day is going to look like, and enable them to finally stand up and be the savior of the states.....oathkeepers, assemble! Wolverines! That B.S. Rather, it's probably going to be gradual as Sean has written out....and, if it happens, it's going to happen as part of a larger event that overshadows the severity of what's going on......like Katrina.

Color me a depressing jerk, but I think when that day comes, way more than 90% of people are going to roll-over and turn their stuff in. The other small percentage are going to learn how utterly stupid it is to try and bring a gun to a tank fight (word of wisdom: if you can't kill it, leave it alone, or it will kill you). The smart will remember Patton's words, "Soldiers don't win wars by dying for their country.....they win by making the other son of a bitch die for his!" and use their brains to deal with the problem through other means. Sure, if a heavy-handed communist take-over tries to go down, I totally see the populace resisting and fighting back.......and being successful. Maybe it's me being naive, but I don't think any political leader is that stupid to try and attempt such either. Like Sean said, gradual degradation. Thing is, I believe T.S. Eliot when he wrote, "The world will not go out with a bang, but a whimper."

[TGS]

The video was... a horrible idea. Taking no cover? Not running after a single shot? Right at street level?

None of that would have helped you in that situation, either. I don't mean to be a jerk, as I know that a lot of the capabilities and TTPs of the military aren't open for public consumption, and many of the more common ones are even restricted for most personnel....but your ignorance is showing.

[Joe in PNG]

Empires tend to break into smaller bits. After all, it's easier to just let that province go to hell on it's own than to hang onto it by force (sadly, it takes a dang long time for some governments to figure this out).
The big thing to look out for is a war. If a big one breaks out in the next 4 years, America as we know it is pretty much done. Think Austria-Hungary, Ottoman, or German Empires in the post WW1 era.

[SouthNarc]

TGS I hope you're wrong but I fear you're not. I was drinkin' beer one time with a mid-level crack dealer when he told me "If folks can't eat it, fuck it, or get high on it, they don't give a shit about it".

So yeah....I can see alot of people giving up their guns without a fight.

[TGS]

The big thing to look out for is a war. If a big one breaks out in the next 4 years, America as we know it is pretty much done. Think Austria-Hungary, Ottoman, or German Empires in the post WW1 era.

I'm interested to hear in what way you think America would take its last breath from a major war in the next 4 years? That isn't an idea I've heard before.


I was drinkin' beer one time with a mid-level crack dealer when he told me

Dude. Your "so there I was..." intros are way better than mine.

[SouthNarc]

I was under the false impression, however, that you were working in N.O. during the stability operations from the hurricane that was caused by George Bush.



We had enough to do 80 miles east but we did.....kinda' sorta'....go over a couple of times.

[Joe in PNG]

I've been doing a LOT of reading on WW1- including a bit on the state of the parties involved before war broke out. Big wars tend to put a lot of stress on a nation, and weaknesses will come out, big time. And damn if we're not weak right now, economically and politically.

One big problem for is is logistics. America isn't the self sufficient industrial powerhouse it was in 1941. Loose the logistics, and you lose the war. Lose the war, and your empire falls to bits.

And the next big problem is our current leadership. The thought of Obama in charge of a major war gives me the willies- look how badly Wilson effed the post WW1 world... and he was freaking Teddy Roosevelt compared to Barack.

(I hate typing on a tablet!)

[Tamara]

The video was... a horrible idea. Taking no cover? Not running after a single shot? Right at street level? This isn't a country of muslims that go out on jobs to die. Hunters that can sit all day, take a shot and leave until a day, week or month later by the thousands would be the actual issue.

You know, when it comes to talking about combat with Sean M, I'd tend to just stay in my lane.

[TCinVA]

Fanatic, extremist, sure. All those words mean is 'having a full and complete devotion to one's beliefs.' That can be bad with bad beliefs, or good with good ones. Smearing that word just leads to a grey mess of nothingness, such as today's politics.


You missed his point entirely.

The idea that somebody who did fight a confiscation effort being covered fairly in the press reports is nonsense. That person will be defined as an extremist, and lots of evidence will be offered up of his/her ne'er-do-well schemes. Society is already at the point where disagreeing with a policy proposal makes you guilty of waging a "war on women" or equivalent to guys in sheets lynching blacks. It would be pitifully easy to relegate someone who actively resisted into an extremist, and once that happens history tells us that the majority will view pretty much anything that happened to them as justified.

Labels are important because within every human heart beats the idea that "well, those suckers deserve it." Give people even the flimsiest reason to apply that to a particular subgroup and they'll frequently jump all over it.

...even if that means smashing in the heads of Jewish infants with a K98.

Labeling on one end and gradual infringement on the other.

The people who burn with a lust to be our masters have lots of flaws...but they are relentless and willing to take every opportunity to move even if it's just an inch in the direction they want to go. Whereas those who talk lots about freedom don't seem to want to do anything but score on 60 yard pass plays.

[Tamara]

The people who burn with a lust to be our masters have lots of flaws...but they are relentless and willing to take every opportunity to move even if it's just an inch in the direction they want to go. Whereas those who talk lots about freedom don't seem to want to do anything but score on 60 yard pass plays.

To steal a joke (http://blog.robballen.com/Post/5528/how-can-you-tell-that-nfl-coaches-are-not-gun): How can you tell that NFL coaches aren't Libertarians? Because if they were, every play would be a Hail Mary.

[NETim]

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster

[LOKNLOD]

The idea that somebody who did fight a confiscation effort being covered fairly in the press reports is nonsense. That person will be defined as an extremist, and lots of evidence will be offered up of his/her ne'er-do-well schemes. .... It would be pitifully easy to relegate someone who actively resisted into an extremist, and once that happens history tells us that the majority will view pretty much anything that happened to them as justified.

Bingo. We are already being painted as such, and have been for a while. Every time there is a crime in the news that turns up a few guns in a trailer park closet, it's trotted out as a "cache of weapons". Nevermind it's a .22 rifle, rough-looking revolver, dinged-up Mossberg, a deer rifle, and a HighPoint clumsily jabbed into a nylon shoulder holster. It's sprawled out on an evidence table like they've stumbled into Enrique's bunker from Terminator 2. It's subtle, but for every one of us having a Mick Dundee moment ("Cache? That's not a cache...THIS is a cache") there is also someone soaking up that subversive message that connects having a "cache" with being a bad guy . How would any one on this forum fare under that media spotlight? "Cache of assault weapons"...."stockpile of ammo"..."body armor & load bearing gear"...."paramilitary training"... good thing you were "stopped before he could do something".

[Tamara]

It's subtle, but for every one of us having a Mick Dundee moment ("Cache? That's not a cache...THIS is a cache")

One of my lifetime goals is that, when they finally take me in for "Aggravated Jaywalking With Intent To Loiter" or whatever, all the gun nuts on the internet forums will look at my junk-on-the-bunk display and say "Okay, that is an arsenal."

[LOKNLOD]

One of my lifetime goals is that, when they finally take me in for "Aggravated Jaywalking With Intent To Loiter" or whatever, all the gun nuts on the internet forums will look at my junk-on-the-bunk display and say "Okay, that is an arsenal."

A noble goal, indeed!

[NickA]

Some random thoughts inspired by the last few pages of posts and Howe's article :
I hope Howe is right, but like others said it would require organization on the community level. In a world where most people barely know their neighbors, if at all, he may be overestimating how organized they could get. Of course this would depend a lot on the "community" in question. Small rural towns might organize very effectively, large urban areas not so much unless there's some strong neighborhood affiliations.
On the creeping legislation vs outright confiscation front, I do think (hope) that most LE and military types would refuse such an order, either on moral grounds or simple fear of getting shot or suffering retaliation against their own families. But, I keep thinking of those experiments where they set up a mock prison environment and the "guards" turn ugly in a hurry once they have power over the other group. Once the populace is largely disarmed through legislation, I wonder if the human nature TC referred to would create a large enough group of people willing to carry out the orders. For that matter, if the "good" LEO's quit or get removed, there would no doubt be plenty of folks willing to enforce the laws for a chance to have some power.
OK, enough tin foil hat stuff, it was a long drive in today and my brain got away from me:o

[LOKNLOD]

I wonder if the human nature TC referred to would create a large enough group of people willing to carry out the orders. For that matter, if the "good" LEO's quit or get removed, there would no doubt be plenty of folks willing to enforce the laws for a chance to have some power.
OK, enough tin foil hat stuff, it was a long drive in today and my brain got away from me:o


In this day and age, we are all slaves to our level of comfort and security. Many, many people will do some pretty unsavory things in the name of "I was just doing my job..." because that job pays the bills and provides for their families.

If you live in a mud hut in some third-world nation, refusing an order to do something (whether as the oppressor, or the oppressed) and taking up arms is a much shorter leap than if you're in the nice comfy US of A, like a cop a few years away from retirement who doesn't want to rock the boat, or a family man with a good job and 3 little kids you don't want to leave fatherless with a stigma of "your dad was that terrorist guy!" For people to act, they need to have more to lose by not acting than they are risking by acting. And in America today, most people all got a lot to lose. They're are a lot of folks who would sell you their mother if it means keeping their ESPN turned on an local pizza joint delivering. Combine that with the demonizing and death-by-a-thousand-laws that TC so accurately described...

[NickA]

In this day and age, we are all slaves to our level of comfort and security. Many, many people will do some pretty unsavory things in the name of "I was just doing my job..." because that job pays the bills and provides for their families.

If you live in a mud hut in some third-world nation, refusing an order to do something (whether as the oppressor, or the oppressed) and taking up arms is a much shorter leap than if you're in the nice comfy US of A, like a cop a few years away from retirement who doesn't want to rock the boat, or a family man with a good job and 3 little kids you don't want to leave fatherless with a stigma of "your dad was that terrorist guy!" For people to act, they need to have more to lose by not acting than they are risking by acting. And in America today, most people all got a lot to lose. They're are a lot of folks who would sell you their mother if it means keeping their ESPN turned on an local pizza joint delivering. Combine that with the demonizing and death-by-a-thousand-laws that TC so accurately described...

Exactly. That's a hard, hard spot to be in when resistance is only going to get you dead or jailed, and your family broke (or dead or jailed too), and the only upside is that it may, may, inspire others to resist.
Of course, I'm extremely thankful that we're discussing this as a pretty hypothetical situation, when plenty of others have to actually make these choices every day. First world problems and all that.

[Chemsoldier]

I think Paul Howe is mostly correct. I work for a unit that would likely have a role if such a thing were to happen and EVERYONE is pro-gun (almost literally) and owns the types of items that they want to make verboten. Not only the operational side personnel, the support folks too.

Also, the sale of ARs and its booming place in the firerams industry is due not only to new gun owners buying them, but large numbers of gun owners who may have mostly been handgun and hunting style fireams owners upgrading. This is making gun owners care more about these kind of firearms than previously. Few wants to have an item they own banned even if they are not gaga over that weapon. Also Gun Owner 3.0, the tactical shooters that have only known a nation where gun rights are on the march, they were not terribly political before, why bother when so many Dems were A rated by the NRA? Those guys (and girls) are getting real political real quick. These laws effect them decisively, they dont give a d*mn about hunting and the old slow fire competition structures, this ban would effectively end their lifestyle. I think they will be a good voice for gun owners.

The range near me has tripled the number of CCW classes they run and even increased their weapons handling courses. This is a good thing, you only take the CCW class once, at least some of these folks are new gun owners or future gun owners, it is also previous gun owners getting serious about self-defense. If you know someone who is from a classically anti-gun work place (teachers, nurses, doctors) make a deal with them, offer to cover their concealed carry course if they commit to getting the permit. I am working something similar for my alma mater's chapter of Students For Concealed Carry on Campus. They often will not committ to the permit even after they turn 21 since they spend the majority of their time in places where guns are not allowed. I am convinced CCW is the key, its the gun measure that is the easiest sell for the average citizen and can be the foot in the door. Once he buys that G19 and is used to putting 15 rounder in it, the grabbers will sound more shrill and silly to them.

[TGS]

I think Paul Howe is mostly correct. I work for a unit that would likely have a role if such a thing were to happen and EVERYONE is pro-gun (almost literally) and owns the types of items that they want to make verboten. Not only the operational side personnel, the support folks too.

Gun owning troops of the military had no problem during Katrina.

Also, I think it's wise to remember different ways of coercion, up to and including decimation, used by governments in years past.

IDK....I knew some guys in the Marines who were pretty ardent about the Constitution. Most of them just pretended to be so, and were just stupid. The majority didn't really care about guns, and equal to the amount of pro-RKBA guys were progressives who wouldn't mind collecting up all the evil guns for the public good.

[Chemsoldier]

To my knowledge there were no federal military forces involved in Katrina gun confiscations, I was in the 82nd at the time and I know the 325 did not assist in that. National Guard perhaps, they were never federalized and worked for the Governor.

[TGS]

To my knowledge there were no federal military forces involved in Katrina gun confiscations, I was in the 82nd at the time and I know the 325 did not assist in that. National Guard perhaps, they were never federalized and worked for the Governor.

But if they're the saviors of our rights, and would never stand for the rights of citizens to be trampled such as on Gun Confiscation Day, then why didn't they stand up to it? Federal or Nat'l Guard?

People can be complicit in crime even if they're not the actual one committing the crime. Ditto gun confiscation. Standing by and doing nothing is not an example of what I'd hold up as "look, we're the good guys! We didn't take your guns! We would never do that, and will always uphold your rights."

[SouthNarc]

But if they're the saviors of our rights, and would never stand for the rights of citizens to be trampled such as on Gun Confiscation Day, then why didn't they stand up to it? Federal or Nat'l Guard?

People can be complicit in crime even if they're not the actual one committing the crime. Ditto gun confiscation. Standing by and doing nothing is not an example of what I'd hold up as "look, we're the good guys! We didn't take your guns!"

It's really a statement on culture because we had all kinds of "civilians" running around with guns in plain sight in the aftermath of the storm and no LEO on the Mississippi Gulf Coast blinked an eye. As a matter of fact we pretty much kept a group of citizens from executing a looter at one point. Nobody got charged and no one's guns were taken. Guys were running chainsaws and clearing debris with pistols stuck in their jeans....so on and so on.

Must be a cracker thing. Guns just don't bother us unless we're looking at the wrong end.

[RoyGBiv]

But if they're the saviors of our rights, and would never stand for the rights of citizens to be trampled such as on Gun Confiscation Day, then why didn't they stand up to it? Federal or Nat'l Guard?

People can be complicit in crime even if they're not the actual one committing the crime. Ditto gun confiscation. Standing by and doing nothing is not an example of what I'd hold up as "look, we're the good guys! We didn't take your guns! We would never do that, and will always uphold your rights."
Could be lots of "personal justification" for participating in the post Katrina confiscation.
Those enforcing the rule....
.... knew it was temporary.
.... saw the evidence of widespread looting and a surge in murders.
.... were witness to the breakdown of civil society.

I'm not saying this is sufficient justification, I'm just saying it's not the same as going door to door in the burbs demanding weapons.

And I'd bet heavily that when they found a weapon on a guy that "looked ok", they didn't take it, just told him to lay low.

[TGS]

Could be lots of "personal justification" for participating in the post Katrina confiscation.
Those enforcing the rule....
.... knew it was temporary.
.... saw the evidence of widespread looting and a surge in murders.
.... were witness to the breakdown of civil society.

I'm not saying this is sufficient justification, I'm just saying it's not the same as going door to door in the burbs demanding weapons.

And I'd bet heavily that when they found a weapon on a guy that "looked ok", they didn't take it, just told him to lay low.

Ahh! But see, that's my point! There will be some sort of justification or significant event that overshadows it:



Just like most middle class white dudes have some pre-planned, idealistic, chivalric, totally dumbass image of what their gunfight is obviously going to look like when they finally draw their CCW, I think a lot of people have a preconceived notion of what gun confiscation day is going to look like, and enable them to finally stand up and be the savior of the states.....oathkeepers, assemble! Wolverines! That B.S. Rather, it's probably going to be gradual as Sean has written out....and, if it happens, it's going to happen as part of a larger event that overshadows the severity of what's going on......like Katrina.


And in the end, all the wannabe Spartans talking about how badass they are on the internet are going to lay down their arms, because in the guise of the public good they're going to face, 1) Being turned into a radical and imprisoned or killed, or 2) Look at their kids and family, and realize the impacts of their decision when push comes to shove.

[RoyGBiv]

Ahh! But see, that's my point! There will be some sort of justification or significant event that overshadows it:

I couldn't say it's completely outside the realm of possibility, it's just that the event that triggers it would probably be the same event that causes all of us responsible gun owners to hold tighter. If you were in NO in the aftermath of Katrina, would you have given up your guns? Did anyone (forgive me please) "white and polite" get arrested for resisting confiscation?

And there will always be Oath-keepers.
http://www.examiner.com/article/oath-keeping-national-guardsmen-refused-katrina-gun-confiscation

[TGS]

Did anyone (forgive me please) "white and polite" get arrested for resisting confiscation?

Residents from a row of mansions, IIRC.

And what about the minorities? Their rights being violated is just as much a problem as Colonel Sanders having his gat taken away. I know that's not what you meant, at all, but I think it's important that we not judge what happens to the "white and polite" as a metric for how f'd up society is.

[RoyGBiv]

Residents from a row of mansions, IIRC.

And what about the minorities? Their rights being violated is just as much a problem as Colonel Sanders having his gat taken away. I know that's not what you meant, at all, but I think it's important that we not judge what happens to the "white and polite" as a metric for how f'd up society is.

I had a feeling I'd take flak for that one.. :(
I'll be sure to not be lazy next time and type "anyone who didn't appear to have criminal intent or a felony record or other firearms prohibition".
Apologies to anyone my laziness may have offended.

[Shellback]

Is anyone familiar with the survey composed by Navy Lt. Commander Ernest "Guy" Cunningham, who was working on a Master's Thesis dealing with the deployment of US military units under foreign command as part of UN-supervised missions abroad? Commonly referred to as The US Armed Forces Survey from April 1994 and specifically question #46:

"The US government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon US citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the US government."

When Cunningham released his findings it was revealed that more than 61 percent of the Marines who took the survey responded that they wouldn't carry out such an order under any circumstances. However, slightly more than 25% of Marines who took the survey replied in the affirmative.

Here's an article written by the same: http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/04/lcdr-ret-ernest-g-cunningham-and-famous.html

Interesting stuff.

[Corvus]

1257

I have voted for my last republican , 3rd party from here on out.