I'm no longer willing to acknowledge "Logic"Man's posts.I agree, though I also like to give a fool enough rope to hang himself--and he will.
One final thought on the issue as it heats up. As I'm sure those of us interested in the gun control issue are aware, several spin off events are being planned both statewide and national. As a result, one gun activist planned an ARMED protest march to D.C. He revealed his plan on an Internet chat show, urging hundreds of protesters to carry their weapons into the capital. It has since been cancelled probably after D.C. officials threatened to meet them on the bridge and disarm them. The organizer, Adam Kokesh, a veteran still plans on state protests to make his point. And now ricin laced letters have been sent to the Pres. And Bloomberg. What's next? Looks like Logicman's concept of civilian weapons being used as military weapons may be right after all. We could have had another Concord bridge confrontation in the 21st Century. "They'll take my gun when they peel my cold dead fingers from around it". Didn't a former NRA spokesman say that? Cap't JackDon't confuse a few morons with being representative of the whole movement. You are right about that. It's not fair to characterize any movement by the actions of a few extremists but the gun rights movement does seem to have a disproportionate number of these people in their ranks and it certainly weakens any argument you may have that all people should have an unabridged right to own a gun. The ideas espoused by the "extremists" should not be labeled extreme because they mirror perfectly the stated position and agenda of the NRA itself. There is no lunatic fringe in the NRA or the gun rights movement. The whole movement demonsrates extreme lunacy. Lois
Answer me these questions: should a "known" mentally unstable person have the right to bear arms? Would you give Charlie Manson a gun of any kind? How about a repeating cannon?If the state has determined the person to be mentally ill, then no.
Would you allow a person with very poor eyesight to own a long range weapon of any kind? Seems Cheney suffered from that condition.Of course. People can have their eyesight corrected through glasses, contacts, and/or surgery these days.
Would you allow black powder gun owners to obtain black powder without registration? Today that would be a very popular item in a certain segment of the population.Yes.
I live in No. Idaho and I own guns, because we do get an occasional bear in our backyard. But someone said it best, "we register our dogs and no one has come to take them away".Dogs are not Constitutionally-protected rights. And yes they have come to take away people's dogs. "Pitbulls" are a perfect example. "Pitbull" is just like the term "assault weapon." It's a made-up term for a type of dog that doesn't really exist, but rather refers to a number of different dogs with similar appearance. Supposedly, these dogs are very vicious and dangerous, but the reality is that the dogs described as "pitbulls" are actually among the friendliest dogs one can buy and very good family dogs to have around little children and babies. But that hasn't stopped certain cities from outlawing them and confiscating them (as in the authorities come and forcibly take away your dog). There are some legitimately dangerous dogs, such as Caucasian Mountain Dog for example, which is by nature an attack that you have to start training from a very young age to be nice (most attack dogs are by nature friendly and have to be trained to be attack dogs). Caucasian Mountain Dog is an old dog breed that goes back over a thousand years ago. The Russians historically have used them as a sheepdog, and the Soviets used them as a military dog, placing them on the German border at the Berlin Wall and to guard the gulag camps. The Russians still use them as police, military, and guard dogs. They can kill wolves, and the average dog would get ripped apart by the average wolf.
I can add to this that one of my dogs got lost and after advertising its description and tagnumber, it was promptly returned to me. If you lose your gun how would the finder know it was your gun?They wouldn't. But if someone "finds a gun," they should call the police.
This just struck me. These shortsighted people who insist on maintaining the "good old days of freedom" complain about Iran and No Korea pursuing their nuclear development programs and call them part of the axis of evil and are making it "clear" they should be restrained from those activities. But all these countries are doing is exercising the right for their country to bear arms (without registration or restriction), no? Where is this different? Is it because these countries cannot be trusted? But everyone in the US is to be trusted with a deadly weapon of small mass destruction?Until they commit a crime, yes. Countries like North Korea and Iran already greatly commit crimes. You are comparing a regime (North Korea is not really a "nation" considering the people have zero say in how it is governed) pursuing weapons to be able to inflict harm on others and maintain its dictatorship as equivalent to a nation that respects human rights and freedoms having weapons to be able to protect itself? This is like claiming that a murderer or rapist has a right to keep arms because a law-abiding citizen does. It's a ridiculous conflation to make.
If I was a conspiracy nut I would point out that all the targets our friend Rick Perry, the governor of Texas knocked down so deftly with his automatic rifle were all painted black. I have never seen that before. Were these targets specifically painted black? A secret message? Another tidbit, until now everyone ahs used the word 'obstructionism', now Bill Maher mentioned the word 'treasonous', but I have not yet seen anyone use the word 'sedition' yet. IMO, What has gone on in congress and out on the streets these past 6 years, is a perfect example of a declared intent to prevent a sitting president from leading the country into the direction he was elected for by the general population. wiki, SeditionBy that argument, the Democratic party engaged in sedition during the last four years of the Bush administration. As for subversion of the Constitution, the only subversion during the last six years I have seen is from the administration itself.law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of seditionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition
You are right about that. It's not fair to characterize any movement by the actions of a few extremists but the gun rights movement does seem to have a disproportionate number of these people in their ranks and it certainly weakens any argument you may have that all people should have an unabridged right to own a gun.Everyone has a right to have a gun unless they are determined to be mentally ill (and even then that can be a bit arbitrary) or until they commit a serious crime. I would disagree that the gun rights movement has any "disproportionate number" of such people. There are just some very loud ones is all.
Why not?So...I suppose the Boston Bombers then illustrate how all Muslims are nutcases then?
They don't want anyone to know who owns the gun. They'd rather lose the gun than be identified and they can always get another untraceable gun or a whole arsenal of them. LoisThat's because there is no shortage of politicians who will take advantage of any opportunity to abuse their power and confiscate people's guns. It's also none of the government's business what guns someone owns or whether they own any guns considering it is a fundamental natural right.
error.
That's because there is no shortage of politicians who will take advantage of any opportunity to abuse their power and confiscate people's guns. It's also none of the government's business what guns someone owns or whether they own any guns considering it is a fundamental natural right....isn't this train of thought just a little paranoid?
...isn't this train of thought just a little paranoid?Not at all. Look to New Orleans, which in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when the police went around confiscating people's guns, or how Governor Cuomo of New York talked about possible confiscation of "assault weapons."
...isn't this train of thought just a little paranoid?Not at all. Look to New Orleans, which in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when the police went around confiscating people's guns, or how Governor Cuomo of New York talked about possible confiscation of "assault weapons." Your statement that is suggestive of an irrational fear is "there is no shortage of politicians who will take advantage of any opportunity to abuse their power and confiscate people’s guns." Your evidence that your statement is rational is weak.
Answer me these questions: should a "known" mentally unstable person have the right to bear arms? Would you give Charlie Manson a gun of any kind? How about a repeating cannon?If the state has determined the person to be mentally ill, then no. And how do you establish that identification? Are you going to train gun salesmen to recognize the symptoms of a psychopath?
Would you allow a person with very poor eyesight to own a long range weapon of any kind? Seems Cheney suffered from that condition.
Of course. People can have their eyesight corrected through glasses, contacts, and/or surgery these days.And how are you going to tell that a person has poor eyesight? When he puts down his red/white cane?
Would you allow black powder gun owners to obtain black powder without registration? Today that would be a very popular item in a certain segment of the population.
Yes.What is it that you want to blow up? Black powder is not a gun, it is an explosive, mainly used for demolition of something.
I live in No. Idaho and I own guns, because we do get an occasional bear in our backyard. But someone said it best, "we register our dogs and no one has come to take them away".
Dogs are not Constitutionally-protected rights. And yes they have come to take away people's dogs. "Pitbulls" are a perfect example. "Pitbull" is just like the term "assault weapon." It's a made-up term for a type of dog that doesn't really exist, but rather refers to a number of different dogs with similar appearance. Supposedly, these dogs are very vicious and dangerous, but the reality is that the dogs described as "pitbulls" are actually among the friendliest dogs one can buy and very good family dogs to have around little children and babies. But that hasn't stopped certain cities from outlawing them and confiscating them (as in the authorities come and forcibly take away your dog). There are some legitimately dangerous dogs, such as Caucasian Mountain Dog for example, which is by nature an attack that you have to start training from a very young age to be nice (most attack dogs are by nature friendly and have to be trained to be attack dogs). Caucasian Mountain Dog is an old dog breed that goes back over a thousand years ago. The Russians historically have used them as a sheepdog, and the Soviets used them as a military dog, placing them on the German border at the Berlin Wall and to guard the gulag camps. The Russians still use them as police, military, and guard dogs. They can kill wolves, and the average dog would get ripped apart by the average wolf.You just stated that some dogs are in fact very dangerous. So how would you control the proper confinement of such "assault weapons"?
I can add to this that one of my dogs got lost and after advertising its description and tagnumber, it was promptly returned to me. If you lose your gun how would the finder know it was your gun?
They wouldn't. But if someone "finds a gun," they should call the police.And if this gun had killed someone, how would the police know where to start their investigation? No one would ever turn in a found gun, because they might become suspect. Without any kind of traceability, how will you solve crimes? Every argument you make has been discussed by lawmakers in cities, states, and yes the federal government, and only then have laws been passed, because it was deemed necessary. Why do we register cars? It is not written in the constitution, no? The only right you have under the constitution is to own a gun(s). And then it specifically follows this up with the clear statement that a well regulated militia being "necessary". Lawmakers on Huffpost,
"Claims that this legislation would create a gun registry are nothing more than shameful scare tactics," said Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on the Senate floor on Wednesday morning. "The opponents of the will of the American people should not spread misinformation or sow seeds of fear about this critical anti-violence legislation. But that's what they're doing." The concern over a federal gun registry has spread quickly. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) was widely considered by Democrats to be one of the Republicans most likely to support the Manchin-Toomey deal. But on Tuesday, he came out against it, saying he believed the bill "could lead to the creation of a national gun registry and puts additional burdens on law-abiding citizens." Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) acknowledged on Wednesday that the legislation doesn't actually create a registry, but he said he believes it could encourage future efforts to do so.So, registering your gun will be a state issue. The rest is pure speculation of the federal government's baaaad intentions, as if that could be passed without lawmakers having a chance to vote on the issue. How do you think laws are passed? Someone draws up a law and the president signs bypassing congress altogether. This is a Democracy with rules, not a Anarchy, where every man is for himself. The Federal Government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people and for the people". If you want to be active I politics, make sure that your representative is not a shill for the NRA and will vote his/her interests instead of the "peoples interest". Why do child molesters (dangerous individuals) have to register when they move residence.? Is that written in the constitution? No. Is it prudent and wise? Yes. Background checks (state registry) of criminals or mentally unstable people is a wise and prudent preventive measure, to prevent nut cases from owning deadly weapons designed for killing people, such as automatic assault weapons. I have never heard of a legitimate hunter 'assaulting" a deer, or needing to protect himself from a wild herd of buffalo, by spraying a hundred rounds into it's midst.
Logic Man, Until they commit a crime, yes. Countries like North Korea and Iran already greatly commit crimes. You are comparing a regime (North Korea is not really a “nation" considering the people have zero say in how it is governed) pursuing weapons to be able to inflict harm on others and maintain its dictatorship as equivalent to a nation that respects human rights and freedoms having weapons to be able to protect itself? This is like claiming that a murderer or rapist has a right to keep arms because a law-abiding citizen does. It’s a ridiculous conflation to make.So, you would restrict those nations from exercising their right to self defense, but not US citizens who have inflicted harm on others? Without background checks how will you ever know if you are selling a gun to some nut case, like Kim Jong-il ? Because he looks oriental? Could you recognize him if you met him in at a gun sales event? The fact is, today, in this country, ANYONE can anonymously buy a gun specifically for purposes of killing people, even if they have already been previously convicted of a violent crime or have a record of mental instability, or be underage, or have a record of drug dealing. The only argument that an opponent for gun registration can make is that it will "lead" to confiscation. I have never heard anyone say we should confiscate all guns, ever, anywhere, anytime. The Constitution grants law abiding citizens the right to bear arms, emphasis on "law abiding" citizens who have nothing to fear from the government. The only way to know "for sure" is back ground checks. My wife is a nurse and in order to practice, she needs to be "registered" and pass a back ground check. There is no mention of that in the Constitution either. Any objections to that law? How about pilots of airplanes, bus drivers, all drivers. Is it not ironic that law enforcement officers have to undergo rigorous training and mental evaluation before they can are allowed on the streets. Yet anyone can wander in and pick up a military weapon without anyone blinking an eye. The argument against a well regulated militia (armed citizens) is completely misplaced and detrimental to our reputation as a civilized, peaceful, well organized, civilized nation.
By that argument, the Democratic party engaged in sedition during the last four years of the Bush administration. As for subversion of the Constitution, the only subversion during the last six years I have seen is from the administration itself.No one talked about armed insurrection, or secession, in spite of the obvious incompetency and sometimes deliberate misleading of the people (war with Iraq because it has weapons of mass destruction) by the Bush administration. Remember the words "crusade" by Bush? Never mind the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost in a "war of choice". Perhaps you have forgotten that Bush was called a war criminal by the rest of the world. I never saw Bush with a Hitler moustache on a sign. I did see a sign once with Bush depicted as Alfred E. Neuman (Mad magazine), as was Obama. A little humor goes a long way. http://search.speedbit.com/Images.aspx?q=Alfred E. Neuman&related=1&s=D4OaWIT6, but this is unacceptable, in view of the four million jews killed under the tyranny of that monster. Under the Sedition Act this would be considered "libelous slander". http://search.speedbit.com/Images.aspx?q=Obama+as+Hitler&site=images&s=D4OaWIT6&btn=Search
You are right about that. It's not fair to characterize any movement by the actions of a few extremists but the gun rights movement does seem to have a disproportionate number of these people in their ranks and it certainly weakens any argument you may have that all people should have an unabridged right to own a gun.Everyone has a right to have a gun unless they are determined to be mentally ill (and even then that can be a bit arbitrary) or until they commit a serious crime. I would disagree that the gun rights movement has any "disproportionate number" of such people. There are just some very loud ones is all. That's not correct. Everyone does not have a right to own a gun, nor should they. There are already laws preventing individuals with criminal records from owning guns and in some places those with psychiatric illnesses can not own a gun. What makes gun supporters extreme is their inability to accept the fact that some restrictions are already in place and are not only reasonable but essential. They act as though the constitution does not allow any restrictions when in fact all we are arguing about is where to draw the line. Ill admit that I don't have any numbers to back up my contention that the gun supporters have a disproportionate number of extremists among them but you have to admit that a large portion of violent extremists own guns and even within the mainstream gun lobby which is the NRA many extremist positions have been taken, so it's not just a few loud individuals.
Your statement that is suggestive of an irrational fear is "there is no shortage of politicians who will take advantage of any opportunity to abuse their power and confiscate people’s guns." Your evidence that your statement is rational is weak.Take a look at the laws just passed in New York state, Connecticut, Maryland, and pending in California. Plenty of politicians are willing to take advantage of situations to continually infringe on gun rights. Obama and Biden themselves tried this even.
Your statement that is suggestive of an irrational fear is "there is no shortage of politicians who will take advantage of any opportunity to abuse their power and confiscate people’s guns." Your evidence that your statement is rational is weak.Take a look at the laws just passed in New York state, Connecticut, Maryland, and pending in California. Plenty of politicians are willing to take advantage of situations to continually infringe on gun rights. Obama and Biden themselves tried this even. And this is due to politicians "abusing their power"? And they are "confiscating guns"?
And how do you establish that identification? Are you going to train gun salesmen to recognize the symptoms of a psychopath?You have it as part of the background check system whether the person was determined by the state to be mentally ill or not.
And how are you going to tell that a person has poor eyesight? When he puts down his red/white cane?You can't. But generally-speaking, if the person is able to see enough to get to a gun store, they're able to see okay enough to own the gun. Are we going to stop people from driving as well without regular eye exams?
What is it that you want to blow up? Black powder is not a gun, it is an explosive, mainly used for demolition of something.All gun powder is explosive. And purchasing gun powder doesn't not require registering it.
You just stated that some dogs are in fact very dangerous. So how would you control the proper confinement of such "assault weapons"?"Assault weapons" aren't real. The guns labeled as such are no more dangerous than any other guns one can buy.
And if this gun had killed someone, how would the police know where to start their investigation? No one would ever turn in a found gun, because they might become suspect. Without any kind of traceability, how will you solve crimes?The police have to do it without that kind of traceability. I could say to you, "If the police cannot question suspects, how will they conduct their investigation and solve crimes?" Because you have a right against self-incrimination (right to remain silent), protected by the 5th Amendment, when dealing with law enforcement. Should police also have to read people they've taken into custody their rights before questioning them? That wasn't required until the case of Miranda v Arizona. Police railed about the ruling, in terms of how it would (they claimed) infringe on their ability to question people.
Every argument you make has been discussed by lawmakers in cities, states, and yes the federal government, and only then have laws been passed, because it was deemed necessary. Why do we register cars? It is not written in the constitution, no?If guns were treated like cars, there would be no background check when purchasing, there would be no requirement to register unless using on public grounds, and a license to operate would be good in all fifty states (something gun control proponents are strongly against). Also, cars are a not a Constitutionally-protected human right.
The only right you have under the constitution is to own a gun(s). And then it specifically follows this up with the clear statement that a well regulated militia being "necessary".Follows it up? The Second Amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The phrase "well-regulated" meant "well-trained," "in good working order," etc...it did not have the modern meaning of regulation as in government regulation. The word "militia" itself refers to the unorganized militia, the general population (this is very clear from Hamilton's Federalist Paper 29). Also in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, Clauses 15 and 16, where the militia is spoken of as a pre-existing entity, and in the 5th Amendment. So essentially, the first part is saying, "A well-trained citizenry, being necessary to the security of a free state," because the Founders did not trust standing armies, and wanted the people to be armed both to protect against foreign invasion and the government becoming tyrannical.
Lawmakers on Huffpost,Fears of a gun registry were not shameful scare tactics. There were a lot of problems with that bill. Read the David Kopel article, "The Problems With Manchin-Toomey.""Claims that this legislation would create a gun registry are nothing more than shameful scare tactics," said Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on the Senate floor on Wednesday morning. "The opponents of the will of the American people should not spread misinformation or sow seeds of fear about this critical anti-violence legislation. But that's what they're doing." The concern over a federal gun registry has spread quickly. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) was widely considered by Democrats to be one of the Republicans most likely to support the Manchin-Toomey deal. But on Tuesday, he came out against it, saying he believed the bill "could lead to the creation of a national gun registry and puts additional burdens on law-abiding citizens." Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) acknowledged on Wednesday that the legislation doesn't actually create a registry, but he said he believes it could encourage future efforts to do so.
So, registering your gun will be a state issue. The rest is pure speculation of the federal government's baaaad intentions, as if that could be passed without lawmakers having a chance to vote on the issue. How do you think laws are passed? Someone draws up a law and the president signs bypassing congress altogether. This is a Democracy with rules, not a Anarchy, where every man is for himself.All that creating a gun registry would require is for a federal agency to be able to interpret the existing law as showing that they can do so, which they might well have been able to do with the wording that was in Manchin-Toomey.
The Federal Government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people and for the people". If you want to be active I politics, make sure that your representative is not a shill for the NRA and will vote his/her interests instead of the "peoples interest". Why do child molesters (dangerous individuals) have to register when they move residence.? Is that written in the constitution? No. Is it prudent and wise? Yes.So you think gun owners should be treated like child molesters (people who have already committed a horrendous crime)?
Background checks (state registry) of criminals or mentally unstable people is a wise and prudent preventive measure, to prevent nut cases from owning deadly weapons designed for killing people, such as automatic assault weapons. I have never heard of a legitimate hunter 'assaulting" a deer, or needing to protect himself from a wild herd of buffalo, by spraying a hundred rounds into it's midst.1) The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, so whether or not a gun (supposedly) can or cannot be used for hunting is completely irrelevant. Right to keep and bear arms is about one's pre-existing natural right to self-defense and to serve as a check on tyranny. 2) There is no such thing as an "assault weapon." The guns that get labeled as "assault weapons" are not automatic fire. Actual automatic fire weapons have already been outlawed for years now. The ones that are legal are very regulated. 3) There is no such thing as a "weapon designed for killing people." I am assuming, based on this website, that you believe in evolution? Well if so, by evolution, humans are animals. The distinction we make between "animals" such as deer, coyote, bear, hog, etc...versus "human" is just semantics. A human is an animal as well. We are upright walking apes. 4) Even if there were guns specifically designed for killing people, those would be the guns specifically protected by the Second Amendment. 5) People do in fact hunt with weapons oftentimes labeled as "assault weapons," such as AR-15s. They are fine varmint and small-game hunting rifles. You are usually limited to at most a five round magazine when hunting in most states though.
Are pro-gun rights politicians abusing their power by insuring that guns are readily accessible to criminals and crazies, and thereby threatening the so-called inalienable right to life of their potential victims?
So, you would restrict those nations from exercising their right to self defense, but not US citizens who have inflicted harm on others?I never said that. You restrict the rights of murderers, rapists, etc...just the same.
Without background checks how will you ever know if you are selling a gun to some nut case, like Kim Jong-il ? Because he looks oriental? Could you recognize him if you met him in at a gun sales event?We have background checks. Applying them universally is the issue. I don't have a problem with universal background checks in principle, the issue of enforcement is the concern.
The fact is, today, in this country, ANYONE can anonymously buy a gun specifically for purposes of killing people, even if they have already been previously convicted of a violent crime or have a record of mental instability, or be underage, or have a record of drug dealing. The only argument that an opponent for gun registration can make is that it will "lead" to confiscation. I have never heard anyone say we should confiscate all guns, ever, anywhere, anytime. The Constitution grants law abiding citizens the right to bear arms, emphasis on "law abiding" citizens who have nothing to fear from the government. The only way to know "for sure" is back ground checks.Dianne Feinstein said it back in the 1990s, that it she could have gotten the votes, she'd have had legislation forcing everyone to turn in their guns. Also remember that the Constitution does not grant any rights, it protects what are pre-existing rights. The argument that politicians don't want to confiscate all guns doesn't fly with gun rights people, because usually what that leads to is politicians pushing for legislation to outlaw (usually arbitrarily) all sorts of guns, and just arbitrarily leaving certain ones legal for people to purchase. Tell me, if a state restricted a woman's ability to have an abortion to the first week after getting pregnant, would you accept their claim that they were still protecting the woman's right to choose?
My wife is a nurse and in order to practice, she needs to be "registered" and pass a back ground check. There is no mention of that in the Constitution either. Any objections to that law? How about pilots of airplanes, bus drivers, all drivers. Is it not ironic that law enforcement officers have to undergo rigorous training and mental evaluation before they can are allowed on the streets. Yet anyone can wander in and pick up a military weapon without anyone blinking an eye.All guns are military weapons or functionally identical, the only exception being that some of the versions the military uses have automatic fire capability. Nurses, pilots, etc...are not Constitutionally-protected rights. And even though we require driver's licenses, most people are not trained drivers. If we required people who drive to actually be well-trained at it, that would be impossible to accomplish and we'd disqualify a whole lot of people from driving. Note that larger vehicles like trucks do require special training to drive, but there are few enough such drivers that this can work.
The argument against a well regulated militia (armed citizens) is completely misplaced and detrimental to our reputation as a civilized, peaceful, well organized, civilized nation.A civilized, peaceful, well-organized, civilized nation should have no problem with the population having wide possession of arms. Human nature doesn't change. One always has to keep an eye on the government for abuses of power, and seek to manage the problem of criminals well (who can never totally be eliminated).
No one talked about armed insurrection, or secession, in spite of the obvious incompetency and sometimes deliberate misleading of the people (war with Iran because it has weapons of mass destruction) by the Bush administration. Remember the words "crusade" by Bush?I am assuming you mean the war with Iraq (Iran is a separate country). However, the WMD issue was not any deliberate misleading of the American people from President Bush. That was a lie purported by the Democratic party. The reality is that the Congress never would have supported the war if the evidence clearly showed there were no WMD. Top-ranking members of Congress do not get their intelligence from the White House and they most definitely are not going to make a decision on whether or not to go to war based just on what the White House is saying. And that is why every major Democrat at the time was all over the television networks talking about why Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power. When the WMDs turned out not to be there and popular opinion turned against the war, the Democrats then insinuated that Bush had lied the country into war, a very cynical thing to do on their part. They also mis-led people into thinking he kept the financing of the wars "off the books," another false claim considering that for supposedly trying to "hide" the true cost of the wars, it was done in plain site, because that is just how the budgeting process works. The budgeting process is very slow, usually starting a year or more before it goes into effect. What the requirements of a war will be a year out are not known at the time, so sometimes the funding for something like Iraq is done via things like appropriations bills and so forth. The Democrats in Congress actively sought to disrupt Bush however, just as the Republicans seek to do with Obama.
Never mind the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost in a "war of choice". Perhaps you have forgotten that Bush was called a war criminal by the rest of the world.I couldn't care less what the "rest of the world" thinks. Most of the "rest of the world" is tyrannical (like Saddam Hussein, the real war criminal whom the U.S. deposed of). For the few parts that aren't, they still do not protect freedoms and rights like the United States does, with a few exceptions.
I never saw Bush with a Hitler moustache on a sign. I did see a sign once with Bush depicted as Alfred E. Neuman (Mad magazine), as was Obama. A little humor goes a long way. http://search.speedbit.com/Images.aspx?q=Alfred E. Neuman&related=1&s=D4OaWIT6, but this is unacceptable, in view of the four million jews killed under the tyranny of that monster. Under the Sedition Act this would be considered "libelous slander". http://search.speedbit.com/Images.aspx?q=Obama+as+Hitler&site=images&s=D4OaWIT6&btn=SearchBush was compared to Hitler so many times I can't even keep count. Obama has as well. People doing both are despicable IMO.
And this is due to politicians "abusing their power"? And they are "confiscating guns"?In New York state and Connecticut in particular, yes, as they bypassed the normal legislative process to ram new legislation through. They took advantage of the Newtown tragedy to pass what, for the most part, was very ideologically-driven and factually-baseless legislation. The entire concept of an "assault weapons ban" I'd say is an abuse of power, just as an "assault speech ban" would be an abuse as well.
Are pro-gun rights politicians abusing their power by insuring that guns are readily accessible to criminals and crazies, and thereby threatening the so-called inalienable right to life of their potential victims?Upholding the Constitution is what politicians are supposed to be sworn to do. That doesn't "infringe" on people's right to life anymore than protecting the rights of accused criminals (who often get away with the crime) does.