What happened, and what effects will the plan have?
To conclude this brief blog post, one of my Facebook finds this morning:
Header Image (book)
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Clue Me In
What happened, and what effects will the plan have?
To conclude this brief blog post, one of my Facebook finds this morning:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Typical Progressive logic.
ReplyDeletePoint me to any article written by progressive that advocates for admission of Syrian refugees without vetting.
DeleteI'll settle for just one.
Right wingers, they'll believe anything.
I don't know if any progressives have advocated letting in unvetted refugees.
DeleteThe issue is the softheads who believe Obama's fairy tales about "detailed screening"
There's a big emphasis on biometrics, so anyone already on US Intel's radar screen will pop up, but that's a fraction of a percentage.
Given document forgery, etc, this process is worthless. Anyone can say they are anybody, given the lack of control an cooperation of governments of origin.
I encourage everyone to go look at the link. You could have traveled all over, got jihadi training and indoctrination, get new docs giving you a different identity from the one you traveled on and got your training with, and you're clean and green to enter the US so long as Uncle Sam doesn't have your biometrics on file.
Given the current geopolical environment, any government welcoming migrants from the ME is criminally insane.
Point me to any article written by progressive that advocates for admission of Syrian refugees without vetting.
DeletePoint me to a thorough vetting process envisioned by this Administration. Here's a hint......without a compliant host nation government, you're rather unlikely to get one.
SF,
DeleteGiven the current geopolical environment, any government welcoming migrants from the ME is criminally insane.
Amen to that!
DIDADIN!
DeleteOh the Progressives have a "vetting" process for Syrians in mind all right. But it's not a processing of "weeding out terrorists". It's a process of "weeding out potential Republican voters".
ReplyDeleteie Christians.
DeleteThere is already a well-known and booming business in document forgery and identity theft supporting illegal immigration (many here illegally from south of the border are filing taxes, buying property, working, etc on stolen SSNs).
ReplyDeleteThe same kind of industry I am sure is already up and running for "refugees" from the ME. Forged passports, birth certificates, baptismal certificates, etc. Faked pictures, falsified family ties...
It's crazy. There is no way to "vet" someone coming from over there. Our federal government cannot even establish their identity.
The premise of the cartoon, that only libs support strong background checks for perspective gun owners is not supported by polls that show a majority of conservatives are also supportive.
ReplyDeleteUnless you hold the view, which I've seen elsewhere, that if someone holds that view, they can't be a "true" conservative.
OK Dave, since you insist on playing paper-thin baloney slicing game, I'll challenge you.
DeleteYour statement is illogical based upon classic logic.
Where does it say ONLY libs? It doesn't. You've veered off the road.
The cartoon challenges the logic of wanting to investigate Americans harder than refugees.
Like any cartoon or notional logo of some larger idea, it cannot stand up to over-examination and legalistic parsing.
Many in this country are more fearful of the NRA than they are of Muslim newcomers arriving from violence-torn regions.
So, how many NRA members have committed gun violence? Were the San Bernardino shooters NRA members? No
Were they vetted by the US Governement? Yes.
I apologize for going all rude on you. You're a nice guy, but the feigned ignorance (wriggling the game) and thread diversion (Il Canardo) by people like you and Ducky is tiresome.
Can we resolve in this new year to get to the point and debate it?
Don't be a sophist, Silverfiddle.
DeleteThe cute little aphorism says "liberals" and then goes on to make a ridiculous assertion.
I'll state my position again. The biggest issue is the myth that gun ownership is going to elevate "freedom and democracy".
I have to find a way to share the culture with gun loons and stupid little cartoons only make it more difficult.
"I'll state my position again. The biggest issue is the myth that gun ownership is going to elevate "freedom and democracy". "
DeleteAnother canard that deflects from the point of discussion.
The 2nd Amendment is "the one ring that rules them all." Without it, there are no "Constitutional Rights".
Delete...and THAT is no "myth".
Is gun control going to elevate "freedom and democracy"?
DeleteI'm just going to leave right here that Ducky admits being stymied by a cartoon.
DeleteAOW,
ReplyDeleteI apologize for flaming your progressive visitors, but as everyone's mother used to say, "this is why we can't have nice things."
A blogger posts some picture, quote or bit of original commentary as a point of discussion, and then the leftwing monkeys and baboons come in slinging excrement, furrowing their brows in feigned ignorance, diverting the thread with canards, collapsing dialog with legalistic parsing and emphasis on trivial details not germane to the point of discussion...
Its a sickness that is rotting our social discourse, and it is boorish behavior that is rude to the blog hostess and her other guests.
I wish. I WISH, we could get good, liberal argumentation from our blogger buddies. I want the intellectual back-and-forth, I want to see ideas sharpened by steel on steel, but so much of what we try to do collapses in a heap of wet cardboard and excrement...
+1. I have some succinct, rational and very point questions about the oft-cited meme's and narratives expounded by the gun control leftists. But when asked, they gun control minions disappear.
DeleteI wished for that, too, but as you know, my readers complained and I got tired of the name calling and obfuscation by my leftwing commenters...and had to switch to Word Press, only to be told I'm censoring! After SO many warnings of "Just don't name call, just debate" I was suddenly censoring because WP enables me to keep people out.... I never wanted that.
DeleteYou're so right. I WISH that, too.
There are three ways of handling unwelcome participants and remarks deemed obnoxious none of them is particularly hard:
Delete1. Use MODERATION all the time, and zealously cull the wheat from the chaff BEFORE it gets into print.
2. PATROL your blog at regular intervals, and simply REMOVE objectionable commentary.
3. Simply IGNORE the offenders. FREEZE THEM OUT by NOT responding. REFUSE to TAKE the BAIT.
The last is almost impossible, because no matter what YOU do as a blog proprietor SOMEONE will ALWAYS come along, take the bait and "Bob's your uncle." ;-)
My advice would be never to try to REASON with blog visitors you know POSITIVELY have no intention other than to A) function as an irritant, B) derail proper debate, C) provoke grudge matches and spite festivals, D) draw attention to THEMSELVES, and KEEP the SPOTLIGHT there as long as YOU allow it.
SELF-CONTROL is the only kind of control that works. If we could master or own egos, nothing anyone ELSE tries to do would matter in the least.
Let me explain. They're loony liberals. They are afraid of law abiding citizens enjoying freedom. They will never admit it, but it's nothing more than they wanting to control us.
ReplyDelete"What happened, and what effects will the plan have?"
ReplyDeleteB.O.'s emotional overload, while explaining his plan, indicates that [he] should never be permitted to own a firearm!
Obama's actions should immediately eliminate all imaginary gun sales on the Internet and all the imaginary violence that follows in its wake.
ReplyDeleteI think he should just put a law in place that prohibits criminals from possessing firearms...
DeleteOh! Oh! Oh! OH! OOH! OOOOH!!! OOOOOOH!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm about to SCREAM I just can't STAND it anymore!
The witless, literalistic, legalistic, perennially bilious temperament of leftists utterly devoid of humor.
FT,
DeleteStrongly agree!
Great cartoon! Captures it perfectly, despite the weak efforts by some of your respondents to re-write it after the fact.
ReplyDeleteToo bad Obama didn't shed some tears for the ongoing slaughter of young black men in Chicago that is a direct result of the policies of his party, and which he supports. Let the jerk put his policies where his mouth is. Then we'll see 'change.'
Maybe this will change: There Have Been More Mass Shootings in 2015 Than Days in the Year
ReplyDeletehttp://theslot.jezebel.com/there-have-been-more-mass-shootings-in-2015-than-days-i-1745776127
On Obama's watch.
Delete*ZING!*
DeleteLiberalmanboy v. AOW = Popgun v. howitzer
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom The Hill:
ReplyDeleteShares of Smith & Wesson jumped 11 percent Tuesday, to $25.86, when the president unveiled his new plan for expanding background checks on gun sales, while Sturm, Ruger & Co.’s stock climbed nearly 7 percent, to $65.54.
For gun-rights groups, the numbers serve to validate a long-running joke within the industry: Obama is the gun salesman of the year.
“President Obama has single-handedly done more to promote gun ownership than anyone else,” said Erich Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America.
“Gun owners are concerned, and they should be,” Pratt continued. “We see people running to gun stores to buy firearms and ammunition.
“If Obama wants to ban it, they want to buy it,” he added.
A great irony, isn't it? ESPECIALLY with the Stock Market taking alarmingly deep dives since the first of the year.
DeleteMaybe i should take what's left of my fortune and put it into Smith and Wesson?
Ya think? };-)>
____ UNASKED for ADVICE ____
ReplyDelete_________ from a ___________
_____ SELF-STYLED SAGE ____
Never get into a fight
With one who knows he's always right.
Those who tend to self anoint
Stay blind to any others' point.
They can't admit they might be wrong,
So they'll harangue you all day long.
They never will express contrition
So you get conquered through attrition.
~ Anne Animus
Can anyone here speak to the accuracy of the information below?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Western Journalism:
[P]urchasing guns online must go through the same background checks as those purchasing them at retail locations...
[...]
The so-called universal background checks Obama seeks would make the transfer of firearms between private individuals through sale, trade, gift or inheritance subject to federal law, and therefore criminal prosecution....
More information at the above link.
Purchasing firearms online or at a gun show, from an FFL dealer, requires a NICs check. Thankfully, Obama is hiring more folks to expedite these checks. It should soon allow me to purchase a firearm in less time. Thanks Obama!
DeleteThe premise behind UBC's, is that private transfers of firearms between citizens, would require such a check to be a legal transaction. The problem is that the proposals for UBC's never mention the enforcement mechanism. Does the citizen commit a crime, if the State has no way of knowing it? The ONLY way to enforce UBC is to mandate registration. That is the next step; there can be no doubt in this, as the gun control industry has admitted to a strategy of incrementalism, and knows full well that UBCs by themselves, are unenforceable. Take a guess as to what the next step after registration would be......
In our daily does of gun control idiocy, Rep. Alan Grayson, D-FL....has taken to HuffPo and stated flatly that purchases from dealers online or at gun shows DO NOT requires a NICs check. And his Statist sycophants will not call him on it.
CI,
DeleteRep. Grayson is an idiot and a liar -- or so some of my Florida friends tell me.
And the sycophants, some of whom must know better, will say nothing. Pfffft.
The ONLY way to enforce UBC is to mandate registration.
If Hillary is the next POTUS, mandated registration will be enacted.
Only if the left controls Congress, and the makeup of SCOTUS changes. The overwhelming consensus among legal scholars, is that registration/confiscation is out of reach for Executive Actions. Not to say that it would stop her from trying.
DeleteEverybody talks about gun control.
ReplyDeleteWith hundreds of millions of guns in private hands in the US, how can you control them? The only answer is to change the situation to where there are no guns in the public domain. Pretty much by definition, with guns in private hands the government can not have ultimate control.
The logical end game is confiscation.
The logical end game is confiscation.
DeleteAgreed, but as a last resort. They would rather demonize firearms and 'other-ize' gun owners...so that they can accomplish the goal of civilian disarmament, without looking like the totalitarian statists that they are.
WHEN will we Stop the Madness! Obama wants to disarm Americans but has no problems sending missiles and semi-automatic weapons to Terrorists, and take your rights away!
ReplyDeleteObama is an incompetent, inept, and even DANGEROUS leader that is placing us at risk, and his polices, both foreign, and domestic are a clear and present danger to America ...
Not only has his “Ideal Deal” with Iran become a threat to us here in the United States, but to Israel and the rest of the Middle East as well. the Obama agreement does absolutely nothing to curb Iran’s development of Intercontinental Missiles … Obama is allowing Iran to develop a delivery system that can target the continental United States, and now we see that North Korea claims that to have tested a Hydrogen Bomb.
And nobody even asks what if any is Hillary Clinton's platform, or where is she on the issues? Well how about these!
supports comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants.
On the legalization of Marijuana, she says... lets “Wait and See”!
On Obamacare, she said, “Keep it but strengthen it”... what the heck does that mean?
She said “Abortion should be legal”. Period.
On taxes, she said “I’d Consider closing loopholes”. Well isn’t that original!
On Israel, she said “ we should Work toward a two-state solution” Oh really? Another Opinion of a Genius!
On Iran, her platform is to “Support framework for nuclear deal. And sontinue diplomacy”! efforts! And she PRAISED President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry for their diplomatic efforts
More proof that our elected officials, and the Democratic front runner really needs a reality check.
So far, Hillary has the same old strategy, don't offend, and just be vague, and don’t say too much!
It’s time for a President Trump or Cruz, I don’t care which one it is as long as it’s not Hillary Clinton! She is as much an anti-American sociopath as Obama is.
Obama is not that dumb to outright ban guns. He’s laying the ground work and will ley Hillary do it through the UN. Once the DemocRAT Senate passes it and Obama signs, it and over rules our Constitution. BUT...
ReplyDeleteThey are basically preparing for worse things that are to come,
Hopefully before then a group of states will unite to resist the tyranny that always follows a disarmed nation.